Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozo bit

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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo bit

This is an article that I spotted by happenstance. The article does not appear to be a Jargon term in the Jargon file, and appears for obsolescence purposes in older versions of the Apple Mac OS. But then it goes on to another usage when one has developer troubles, I guess, making it in my opinion a WP:COATRACK that promotes a book. I am, in short, not sure that this is going to fall into our inclusion guidelines. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed to keep per argument given by Uncle G, below. Ohms law (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: both are verifiable from multiple reliable sources (some of which are cited in the article), and both have the same name. But there is no actual connection between the twain in any source that I can find.
The first belongs in an overall article about Finder flags (if separate from file attribute) for which copious sources discussing all of the flags (Bozo, Invisible, Bundle, &c.) exist. But we don't have that article yet. I'm not sure yet where the second belongs. Deletion isn't the answer here. An article split is (with this, of course, disambiguating the split destinations). We just need to determine where the second part of the split should go. The first is obviously Finder flag or file attribute. Uncle G (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed, so I've changed my vote above... The second part could maybe become a section in some other page. Software development, maybe? Ohms law (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but remove the coatrack stuff. I also agree with Uncle G. It should be merged into a general article on finder flags unless other sources document the use of the term "bozo bit" besides the book. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Humour - why is there not wiki page for butthead astronomer? LOL [ I make it a habit to not use this alias for trivia but it is quite notable and this question reminded me... ] I guess you could make a page on Apple related insulting jargon. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have Apple Inc. litigation#Libel dispute with Carl Sagan. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did find that. I guess I'm musing more generally rather than trying to answer specific issue here-

apple has a section on libel, and regarding culture comment below, excessive positivity and pompous jargon is the norm. Any deprecating terminology, while common in technical communities, seems notable when it hits the general population ( ever see recent DTC drug ads ? These aren't insulting but just lack accepted puffery and can be quite striking ( sounds more like an encyclopedia entry than an ad as do many drug inserts ) even if not something that is notable on a major news source but may be noted in ad related publications). I guess marginally notable but obscure jargon could be listed on a page. I'm not really sure a software flags page would be all that great- how much can you say about bit usage or parity, carry,oflow, sign bits, etc given notability criteria? The only thing of note here is the "Bozo" term AFAIK.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, now the article makes a bit of sense. I'm leaving the discussion here open and not withdrawing my nomination, but the problem I think now is that there was no apparent connection to culture with Apple - what I read was something about a technical bit, an explanation as to why it was called a bozo bit, and how this factors into meatspace (and why one must never flip the bit). Perhaps this is a keeper, but the link involving Apple between the two must be found and/or explained better. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't be opposed to a DAB, but I'm puzzled where to put the latter stuff on the programming culture stuff, because that's not somethign that's really related to programming as such, just culture. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am too, as I said. At least one of the sources is explicitly discussing "Geeks". I haven't looked at the original McCarthy book to see what context it presents this information in. That might provide a hint. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the usage as an early "copy protection" flag in the Macintosh Finder environment, and the use as in the McCarthy book with regard to software teams are sufficient. I'm not entirely convinced these are unrelated; there may be an analogy between the one bozo bit that prevents you from copying a file and the other bozo bit that prevents you from listening to a person's input. But I don't believe there's any rule necessitating a DAB page; they can coexist as a merged article of sorts, at least until someone creates a chart of file attributes on Macintosh filesystems within a technical article. I don't believe this article is "promoting" a book, as the book was published nearly a decade before Wikipedia was around. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no real reason for outright removal given. It has plenty of well-sourced information.Scientus (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has useful information. I've heard, more than once, a third use too - which I will take to the Talk page for the entry. Gordon Findlay (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article because there are references to it out there on the web. It's a well known piece of history of Digital Rights Management. RPTB1 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 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.