Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart computer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cart computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Does not exist outside of this Wikipedia article. -- samj inout 19:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research or something made up in one day. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Computer carts exist, but the phrase "cart computer" appears to be a neologism and no sources are cited for the content of the article. —Snigbrook 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but Move to a different title and Add References, or Merge. Remember that Wikipedia is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, and will contain items as this. I think we should mark this as a Stub, find some good references or images, and give it a better name. I, as a recent visitor to a hospital (not a paitient), as well as attending school, and even a nursing home, have seen cart computers in abundance. This should probably be merged with something like "computer cart" or something along the lines of moving electronics. This is Notable, and it does exist. A cart computer is, as stated, a desktop computer (with monitor and tower) sitting on a rolling cart, plugged into a wall. It is a space saving item, used to place a PC in a hall or tight spot. However, it needs references and expansion, so a lot of work will probably be done if it stays (which I hope it does). --TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What references were you proposing to add? The closing administrator is not a Magic Reference Making Machine, capable of conjuring sources from thin air. Deletion policy is clear. If no sources exist, there should be no article. The nominator has looked for sources. Xe showed what xe did in xyr nomination. Xe found none. All that you've done is just waved your hands and made unsupported claims that sources exist, in some place that you haven't specified, under some alternative name that you haven't suggested. That's not enough. Please make proper contributions to AFD discussions. If you want to demonstrate that a subject is notable (which is not your subjective estimation of its importance or worthiness, by the way) then cite multiple independent sources documenting it, in depth, written and published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, as Wikipedia:Notability says will demonstrate notability. Nothing less will do. Put in the effort. Don't just wave your hands and hope. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I wouldn't be coming down so hard on TurtleShroom here. It's fair to say that these things are pretty common and you don't need a explicit source for things that are trivially obvious or fundamental (this isn't a perfect example, but Alphanumeric keyboard demonstrates my point). That said, I don't think that any possible combination of two obvious items justifies an article especially if that combination, either the word of the concept, doesn't have notability, which is demonstrated through WP:RS. So, with that in mind, I'm a weak delete. Shadowjams (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. alphanumeric keyboard, a subject that is documented on pages 63 et seq. of ISBN 9780130461094 for starters, not only has sources available, but is easy to source. It took me 20 seconds with Google Books to find that. In addition to reading the page mentioned by 160.39.213.152 above, read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#There are no exceptions to everything. You've just demonstrated, yet again, the error of the line of thinking that there are exceptions to everything. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with this interpretation of WP:Notability (you should add those cites to spacebar as well) and it is a misinterpretation of the WP:RS policy. The fact that there are dueling essays on the topic should indicate that this interpretation is not official WP policy and is at best a persuasive argument one way or another. I would point out that the WP:RS policy applies not only to article notability but also to article-content notability. On the latter point especially, there is a form of judicial notice that exists on wikipedia, if not explicit in policy then in almost unanimous practice. This discussion is about the former type. I would concede there is more room for argument on that point. For the record, we are in complete agreement in on this particular article, and if memory serves me, on a number of others as well. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly not familiar with it you think that it's about notability. It's about verifiability, as the pages themselves state, and which is the issue under discussion here. Go and read the pages again. The error in your statement about not needing sources should become clear. As I said, it's a common canard, and you've once again demonstrated the fallacy of it.
You are also confused on another point. There's no such thing as "article-content notability". Notability governs subjects and topics, and whether they should be given their own articles, or articles at all. It is not a content policy. Our content policies are verifiability, the prohibition of original research, the copyright policy, and the NPOV. Verifiability requires that everything must have a reliable source, without exception, and most definitely is official policy, contrary to what you are arguing here.
There are no exceptions to everything; and no sources existing means no article. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is such a thing as article content notability, but you're right that it's not governed directly by WP:NOTABLITY. I don't claim it does, "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject....an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details."WP:Notability
That's what I mean when I say "article content notability." That, plus the other explicit policies you mention. WP:RS is primarily an article-content policy and a notability reference policy. My response is quite clear that WP:RS is relevant to article notability but it is not the policy as to article notability. That is governed by WP:Notability which happens to rely heavily on whether or not there are reliable sources. But sources do not make notability, nor is there anything implicit in WP:notability that indicates there isn't a sort of judicial notice with regard to blatantly obvious facts. Again, the dueling essays on the point demonstrate the contentiousness of the issue. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is such a thing as article content notability, but you're right that it's not governed directly by WP:NOTABLITY. I don't claim it does, "However, because of the nature of an encyclopedia, the concept of notability nonetheless affects article content. Treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject....an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details."WP:Notability
- You are clearly not familiar with it you think that it's about notability. It's about verifiability, as the pages themselves state, and which is the issue under discussion here. Go and read the pages again. The error in your statement about not needing sources should become clear. As I said, it's a common canard, and you've once again demonstrated the fallacy of it.
- I'm familiar with this interpretation of WP:Notability (you should add those cites to spacebar as well) and it is a misinterpretation of the WP:RS policy. The fact that there are dueling essays on the topic should indicate that this interpretation is not official WP policy and is at best a persuasive argument one way or another. I would point out that the WP:RS policy applies not only to article notability but also to article-content notability. On the latter point especially, there is a form of judicial notice that exists on wikipedia, if not explicit in policy then in almost unanimous practice. This discussion is about the former type. I would concede there is more room for argument on that point. For the record, we are in complete agreement in on this particular article, and if memory serves me, on a number of others as well. Shadowjams (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I wouldn't be coming down so hard on TurtleShroom here. It's fair to say that these things are pretty common and you don't need a explicit source for things that are trivially obvious or fundamental (this isn't a perfect example, but Alphanumeric keyboard demonstrates my point). That said, I don't think that any possible combination of two obvious items justifies an article especially if that combination, either the word of the concept, doesn't have notability, which is demonstrated through WP:RS. So, with that in mind, I'm a weak delete. Shadowjams (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What references were you proposing to add? The closing administrator is not a Magic Reference Making Machine, capable of conjuring sources from thin air. Deletion policy is clear. If no sources exist, there should be no article. The nominator has looked for sources. Xe showed what xe did in xyr nomination. Xe found none. All that you've done is just waved your hands and made unsupported claims that sources exist, in some place that you haven't specified, under some alternative name that you haven't suggested. That's not enough. Please make proper contributions to AFD discussions. If you want to demonstrate that a subject is notable (which is not your subjective estimation of its importance or worthiness, by the way) then cite multiple independent sources documenting it, in depth, written and published by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, as Wikipedia:Notability says will demonstrate notability. Nothing less will do. Put in the effort. Don't just wave your hands and hope. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:MADEUP. A computer on a cart may exist, but that doesn't mean it is anything more than someone shoving a PC and a battery on a cart post-production. Ironholds (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reviewing nom's Gsearch.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.