Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUI Simple Unique IDs

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> Speedily deleted - creator's request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUI Simple Unique IDs

~~Delete~~ article is an in-depth description of a non-notable software software package written by the article creator. Apart from a lack of notability, the article has WP:COI and WP:OWN issues. Mayalld (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7 - Author and sole contributor requested deletion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SUI Simple Unique IDs Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Mayall,
I am not the creator of the software, and have no pecurinary interest in it. I did originate on the W3.org, and Amigaworld and elsewhere where I discussed the problem of having real unique identities available for net publications (over four years), but it is the work of a comapny (Lestec). I suggested to them the wiki as a resource for the service and volunteered to write it.
I did produce the images, and I did supply them to Lestec to use. I am not paid by that company, or have any holdings in it.
The fact is that wikipedia references, and references well a number of established identity systems, all having problems by their use of randomisied factors. This system is new, but also working at the moment. I am editing the wiki as support is be being fianlisied.
As for it being "non-notable", it is new and hence of little note - it would be a mistake however to conclude that it is without importance. It does exist, it is not speculative, it has immediate use that does not exist otherwise. Anyone, especially a computer user, who needs a ID would naturally first search the wikiepedia. I believe it is in the right place and service for readers for wikipedia.
For instance: Epub the new e-book standard mandates a unique ID for all publications (there are tens of thousands of such works that will use Epub format), unfortinately there is not an ID system that allows epublishers (especially small epublishers) to get actually unique IDs (indeed this is conceded in the IDEF documents on Epub which suggests "making them up" - which is not viable).
The defense of the article is simple, it has a place amongst the other systems covered already by the wikipedia.
PS. I should add that Les Moull the proprietor of Lestec and the creator of SUI, is a friend of long standing and has taken time out to produce this free software for the public good. He does have plans for his own commercial products using it, but the specifications are completely open and in the public domain - third party developers, commercial or others, are welcome to produce their own software and scripts and the Wiki has been designed for their use as well.
I am a high school teacher with a deep interest in literature in electronic form, not a software provider. A system of unique identity, that is relaible and does not rely on "big number randomisation" is essential - to my best knowledge SUI is the only system available to non-programmers, and possibly the only one that provides unique codes that are actually unique rather than just unlikely to be repeated.
--GregorySchofield (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia is not a free web host for hosting primary documentation for whatever you please, nor is it a resource for conducting the business of software development. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Per our content policy, things only belong here after they have been documented outside Wikipedia, by reliable sources that are independent of a novel idea's creators/inventors. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. The place for writing and publishing your own primary documentation of your novel idea, and organizing software development, is your own web site. (We know that you have one. You hyperlinked to it in the article.) Your idea only warrants an article here after it has been acknowledged by the world at large, and had proper documentation written and published about it by other people independent of you. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text given does not contain any indications of notability for this business or software package per WP:CORP. The text also seems fairly promotional in tone, and contains instructional material as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gregory Schofield asserts above that he is NOT the creator of this software. At the time the AfD was started, the article that he had created and edited stated that he WAS co-creator of the software. Indeed the claim was only removed from the article diff half an hour AFTER the asserion here that he was not the creator of the software. Mayalld (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (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.