Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N8VEM

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. v/r - T P 15:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N8VEM

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

Non-notable as per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Significantly promotional. This was a contested WP:PROD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found some independent coverage: [1], [2] --Kvng (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to identify any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 07:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources added to article --User:Wayne Warthen 13:57, 25 May 2102 (PST) — Wayne Warthen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't see anything sourced whatsoever (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were the one who removed them. I'm not clear why. --Kvng (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed extraneous items listed under an inappropriate section called "sources" that were unrelated. See wp:CITE as I already linked to above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Modified article to include references in a more appropriate way. --Wayne Warthen 01:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Warthen (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The bit-tech source looks like it probably counts as a reliable source, but the other two don't, in my opinion. I can't find any other sources about this, which means the coverage is just a shade too thin for us to have an article. If someone manages to find another reliable source then I might change my mind, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note from an N8VEM community member... Dear Sirs/Maam, I am a semi-retired software engineer that decided to learn about digital hardware. I am not quite sure how I came across the N8VEM project, but it was a GOD shot for me. For over a year now I have been working with the N8VEM hardware, building my boards, learning to debug digital hardware, and beginning to learn to design hardware as well. I cannot explain strongly enough, how valuable the project has been to me. It has served as a highly educational experience, as well as an opportunity to meet and collaborate with like minded hardware enthusiasts worldwide that has accelerated my learning process beyond my expectations. Since my successful build of my Zeta SBC, I have written 10k lines of new Z80 code and several dozen utility programs. Not only am I having a ball, but my confidence has increased significantly about the hardware and I believe this will enhance my ability to find work in the hardware area. As the project is a volunteer based project, with completely open source, and the community members are extremely helpful, I am getting the education I could not afford if I had to pay by the unit at a college. I understand there are about 350 of us. I am not sure exactly what "notable" is for you, but the project is making a BIG difference in the real world, providing an opportunity for people like me to learn, and as I progress, share what I know with others. While we may not have been written up in many journals, (and we can work on that), there is no doubt that the project is fulfilling an important need, and in my opinion, the project is worthy to be represented in the wikipedia, as it's non-presence would be a disservice to a large, very hard working group of people devoted to personal growth and community. Please give consideration to keeping the article, and granting it some time to become "notable" in your eyes. Gratefully, Douglas Goodall 19:00PST 28May12.

Hello Douglas, and thanks for posting here. These deletion discussions can be hard to understand for people who are new to Wikipedia, as contributors here often use shorthand, and there are various different rules that we use to judge whether subjects should have their own Wikipedia article. So, I'll try and give you the basics. The most important rule we use, and the one that applies here, is Wikipedia's general notability guideline. This says that there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of N8VEM itself for Wikipedia to have an article on it. For a full explanation of this you can read the guideline, or you can have a look at a shortened (and slightly in-your-face) explanation here. This is why most editors above are debating what sources are available about the group, rather than more general or subjective criteria like the difference the project makes in the world. These kind of subjective criteria have little effect on deletion discussions, I'm afraid. (See also the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I would argue that while there are not many external sources to quote regarding the activities and outputs of the N8VEM and N8VEM/S100 projects, that reflects the specialised nature of the activity and its community mode of operation, rather than a genuine lack of "notability". For instance, the current article on the Raspberry Pi homebuild computer is comprehensive, including pricing information on the commercial (non-profit) product. The main difference is that the Raspberry Pi has large institutional and commercial backing, which allows for publicity and promotional budgets that generate "sources", whereas the N8VEM family of projects are strictly community-based, non-profit, voluntary and work entirely through online collaboration. This does not generate a publicity paper-trail.

A second argument for retention is that the N8VEM projects demonstrate the extension of earlier generations of computer technology, chronicled in Wikipedia, into the present day. Articles on Homebuilt Computers, on the Homebrew Computer Club, and on the S-100 Bus should be edited beyond their current scope to recognise that the technologies and activities described are continuing to develop actively among a world-wide community of enthusiasts. These articles should refer to other projects as well as N8VEM, but they certainly warrant cross reference to an appropriate N8VEM article.

It is understood that the N8VEM article needs to be informational rather than promotional and I understand several editors are willing to work on that.

Declaration of interest: I have contributed edits to Wikipedia on other topics. I have followed the N8VEM projects for some years and made some minor contributions to the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthwait (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources. Only one Google News Archive hit. No relevant Google scholar hits. No relevant Google books hits, except for "BOOKS LLC" reprints of Wikipedia. Notability not demonstrated. Maratrean (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2012 (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.