Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical Objects for C++

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Strong consensus to delete. MBisanz talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Objects for C++

[edit]
Typical Objects for C++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Software programming package, no assertion of notability. The use of the term "yet another" in the lead section is a sign that there is no notability to be found for this anywhere. Additionally, the package creator's name (Alexey Morozov) matches that of the article creator, and his e-mail address is included. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No, don't. Typical Objects for C++ is the one and only one realization of pure C++ introspection. Check demo application please. It's 100% notability. The C++ world should know about it. User:Alexey_Morozov - timed 17:53, 13 March 2009(Moscow)
    • Notability is not defined as "the world should know". It is defined as "the world already does know"". -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. Now the world knows Typical Objects for C++. But after deletion it forgets about that. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
        • Exactly. The world does know because of a Wikipedia article. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. The right way to use Wikipedia is, make your product known to the whole world, and then start the Wikipedia article. Do you really think Microsoft Windows became a world leader because it was first mentioned in Wikipedia?

          I have a feeling you don't have a clue what we mean by notability. Start the article once the product becomes well-known, not so that it becomes well-known. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • Sure. The product is well-known already. I know it well for example.Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:31, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)


*Speedy delete (G12) as a copy-vio of. http://tocxx.110mb.com/. Tagged as such. Themfromspace (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I don't think a speedy is appropriate here; the site you reference appears to have been created since the article in question. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. I as the author created the page for demo application of Typical Objects for C++. Sources are not yet published but will be I hope. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete. No evidence of reliable sources discussing this framework. Appears to be original research. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's no comment, BTW, on the quality of the research in question. I for one am intrigued by this, having used similar packages in languages like Java and C#, but having believed it impossible to produce one in C++ due to lack of language support for reflection. But until there are reliable source commentaries on it, and I have little doubt there will be some at some point, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's wrong. Demo application at http://tocxx.110mb.com/demo.zip is enough reliable as source for discussing this framework. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • M. Morozov, you're the author both of this article and of the subject, so please first read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You're also asserting that no sources have been published, so also read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You're mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance for documenting the undocumented, so read Wikipedia:No original research. You're asserting that without Wikipedia advertising your creation the world would have zero knowledge of it, so read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And you're asserting that sources that you created yourself, documenting your own work, are reliable and evidence of notability, so read Wikipedia:Independent sources, Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies, and Wikipedia:Notability.

    You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for what you are doing. Your own web site is the place for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, whose content must be verifiable, neutral, freely copyright licenced, and free from original research. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets exist for publishing creator-written documentation of the heretofore undocumented and the heretofore unknown. One of those outlets is your own WWW site, that you pay for. Wikipedia's remit covers existing human knowledge, not attempts by people to add to it by writing directly in the encyclopaedia. Such shortcuts around the proper process of publication, fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge are not allowed. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's too edificatory. The page "Typical Objects for C++" is just a mention of a product. There is no conflict of interest at all. Has page something incorrect elements? If has - just change it. But do not delete - it'll be realization of conflict of interest. It's just a link. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete Topic fails WP:N; has no coverage in independent reliable sources like computing magazines, academic journals of computer science, books from reputable publishers, etc. cab (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no coverage for it in Bible too. Who needs all this coverage? The TOC++ works well without any paper blague. It deserves the notability. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:22, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)
      • Who needs all this coverage? You, if you want to demonstrate that this topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. It deserves the notability --- you appear to be the only one with this opinion. If others felt it were notable, they would have actually gone to the trouble of noting it by giving it coverage in reliable sources. cab (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? I'm not wiki editor spec and don't know it at all. Wiki editor is Hebrew to me. If there are some errors in wiki code - just fix it. Don't make insinuations please. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:59, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Speedy delete (G11) – User is clearly trying to promote his product here, which is what we call here spamming. MuZemike 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was the user's interventions here, not the article itself, that made it clear that this article was written for promotional purposes. That's why I feel speedy may not be appropriate. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Promotion of what? Typical Objects for C++ is not a commercial product and never will be such. It's just a mention of possibility to implement some programming pattern. I'm not promouter but just software developer. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 9:10, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Typical_Objects_for_C%2B%2B&oldid=1069802213"