Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Help and Support Center

Help and Support Center

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one-line permanent stub suffers from lack of notability and lack of contents. It is run-of-the-mill, not something that stands out and becomes notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be some room for improvements [1], [2]. Usually we don't delete articles just because they are short. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL. And we do delete articles because they are not notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL is irrelevant. It says that Wikipedia articles are not in themselves instruction manuals, not that they can't be about instruction manuals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And incorrect too. Manuals only contain manual-like instructions. You can cite a manual only when you want to write a manual. Otherwise, the only thing you get out of a manual for Wikipedia is passing mentions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a restriction on citing a manual it still doesn't mean that we can't have an article about a manual based on non-manual sources, such as the ones found by Vejvančický's searches. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp, so please try do do so rather than continue to argue about an utterly irrelevant policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. Hypothetical nonsense nobody cares about. The truth is, the article has stayed a worthless one liner because it cannot possibly become anything else. Vejvančický didn't find source; he has found a lot of search engine hits and is doing a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. Lots of trivial mentions don't make the article notable. If there was really something usable in those source, you two wouldn't have wasted time improving it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "Blah, blah, blah, blah" does that trump your "Blah, blah, blah"? Let's discuss this like adults rather than get into playground name calling. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The searches linked above by Vejvančický find loads of coverage in independent reliable sources, showing clear notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Recently added sources continue to provide no evidence of notability on this subject. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The external links in the article show significant coverage in sources from John Wiley & Sons, Peachpit Press, and Cengage Learning. How do they provide no evidence of notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies here for it is not written like a guidebook or manual. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator did not check for reliable sources, even a quick Google book search reveals many. Simply because of lack of sources currently in the article is not a reason to judge notability of a subject. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I did check. All I find is passing mentions. This, this, this and this are not evidence of notability.

My nomination does not even have a reference to WP:NOTGUIDE but it does apply because 86.17.222.157 proposed improving the article with guide-like contents. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]