Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEAL GUI

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. "Keep" comments assert nothing other than "useful" or "I think there may be sources somewhere". While it is correct that there don't have to be sources to verify notability in the article, there needs to be at least clear evidence that they exist, not just the claim that they may exist somewhere, maybe. While redirection was discussed, there seems to be no agreement on a reasonable target. If anyone wants a copy of the article in userspace temporarily to work on while sources are found (or to consider merging, if a target can be found), feel free to ask me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEAL GUI

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

Only three sources, two of which are first-party, and the other barely mentions the subject; search for further sources proved futile. Non-notable. Keφr (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not familiar with the current status of the SEAL project, but I remember that the SEAL GUI created quite some enthusiasm in the DOS community, as it offered a nice new GUI for DOS-based systems. I even remember one or two articles in the printed press (beyond online coverage), although it may be difficult to find them after all these years in order to establish notability. I do believe the subject should not be deleted, but (ideally) be expanded beyond its current stub status.

Also, I'm concerned that the initiator of this proposal for deletion hasn't chosen much less drastic measures first (that is, raise questions on reliability of sources or bring up proposals how to improve the article on the talk page first, or actually start improving an article himself - just searching for keywords in Google is hardly enough to seriously base non-notability decisions on), and also that he has tagged several other (but only DOS-related) articles for deletion or started to truncate them as well without prior discussions on the talk pages. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that the WP:BURDEN is with the one who adds material. And "community enthusiasm" is not a reliable source. Speaking of which, I do not see anyone here adding lots of these. There is nothing to ask about the already used sources - the policy is clear that sources should be independent and discuss the subject in-depth. As for the last point, what are you trying to say? I am just trying to enforce policy. Keφr (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the 'most notable' of the DOS distributions that use SEAL derivatives. Yura87 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least it was useful for me. I came upon wikipedia searching for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.109.217 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 July 2012‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one reliable ref in the article is a passing mention. I could not find any other sources to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References establishing notability do not need to be listed in the article, they just need to exist (although the latter implies that in most cases they could be listed in the article at some point). Also, not all references can be found by Google search (actually I think the majority of sources cannot be found by Google, in particular if they happen to be a few years old, were in the printed press, or in other countries). I do remember some SEAL related news in the German printed press, but that's years ago and I don't have all magazines archived and don't have the time to search for then at present, anyway.

Perhaps we should merge the QubeOS article (also in AfD at present) by the same author into the SEAL article? Both articles are short and I assume there are some similarities between the two projects (but don't know for sure). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no online reliable sources covering the topic in depth (apart from the reference already in article I found a slideshow by PCWorld, which is also a trivial mention). As the project doesn't predate the internet (it seems to be first released in 1999), the lack of online media covering subject does indicate the lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above, these things were quite widely used at the time. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: merge to QubeOS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, merges should be based on sourced material, and this article does not seem very rich in it. Keφr (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete unless the other article gets deleted. Possible search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: redirect to QubeOS? The only thing these two have in common is the initial developer. QubeOS didn't inherit SEAL GUI's source code (they are written in different languages: QBasic and ANSI C respectively), and within a certain timeframe projects were developed alongside. Thus the resulting redirect would be eligible for deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2. BTW, the same problem doesn't allow to merge these two. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. See above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 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.