| Revision as of 18:40, 29 October 2008 editUncle G (talk | contribs)Administrators52,482 edits On what to do← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:16, 1 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''speedy keep''' — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. ] (]) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}} | |||
| :{{la|Job scheduler}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Job scheduler}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on ]. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.] (]) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on ]. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.] (]) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' seems to have a lot of references in technical magazines, as per . < |
*'''Keep''' seems to have a lot of references in technical magazines, as per . <span style="color:#D00000;">'''RJaguar3 | ] | ]'''</span> 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **I do not disagree that the subject is notable, I just think that this page should have more sources to live up to Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | **I do not disagree that the subject is notable, I just think that this page should have more sources to live up to Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *<s>'''Keep''' sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added?</s> |
*<s>'''Keep''' sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added?</s> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2008-10-29 17:49:55</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| **Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. ] (]) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | **Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. ] (]) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ***I agree with you and I change my vote to '''Delete'''. ]] 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ***I agree with you and I change my vote to '''Delete'''. ]] 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
| ******Nobody worked on ] for ''almost five years''. ]. I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are ''perpetuating'' the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources. Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources ({{find sources|job scheduler}} {{find sources|job scheduling}}), and then come back to this discussion. If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the ''next'' editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work. This is how articles get built by collaboration.<p>If you find multiple independent, in-depth, published sources whose authors are reliable, then the inescapable conclusion per deletion policy, is that we must keep the article, because all that needs doing is for editors to take sources in hand, hit that "edit this page" button, and make the article better; an administrator using administrator tools isn't required. ] (]) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ******Nobody worked on ] for ''almost five years''. ]. I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are ''perpetuating'' the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources. Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources ({{find sources|job scheduler}} {{find sources|job scheduling}}), and then come back to this discussion. If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the ''next'' editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work. This is how articles get built by collaboration.<p>If you find multiple independent, in-depth, published sources whose authors are reliable, then the inescapable conclusion per deletion policy, is that we must keep the article, because all that needs doing is for editors to take sources in hand, hit that "edit this page" button, and make the article better; an administrator using administrator tools isn't required. ] (]) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *****While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed to exist in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of ] takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD in light of a notice for lack of sources which '''has''' existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. ] (]) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | *****While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed to exist in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of ] takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD in light of a notice for lack of sources which '''has''' existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. ] (]) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ****** |
******Unverifiability means that ''no sources exist'', not that no sources are cited. You haven't ''looked for sources yourself'' to see whether that is the case, and thus have not made a case, in accordance with deletion policy, that the subject is unverifiable. Please read the aforelinked policies and pages, as well as ]. Nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability requires that ''you look for sources yourself''. This has been our policy on verifiability . ] (]) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *******Thank you for the information, Uncle G. I misunderstood verifiability policy. Is it possible to withdraw this AfD? ] (]) 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, altogether possible: if the nominator wants to withdraw it, it will be withdrawn. I'd do it, except that I've never learned; the only time I did it, I accidentally closed all the nominations posted on that day's log, causing confusion. ] (]) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Consider it done. ] (]) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:16, 1 March 2023
- 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 speedy keep — nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Job scheduler
- Job scheduler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article does not cite enough sources. Also borders on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The implementations section is more of a list than what should be an article.Spidern (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep seems to have a lot of references in technical magazines, as per the Google News search page. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do not disagree that the subject is notable, I just think that this page should have more sources to live up to Misplaced Pages standards. Spidern (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivenin (talk • contribs) 2008-10-29 17:49:55- Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. Spidern (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I change my vote to Delete. Antivenin 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourselves with our Misplaced Pages:Editing policy and our Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection. We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later. We build upon what exists, and improve articles, by boldly editing them. We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article. AFD is not the only tool in the toolbox. Please read, and absorb, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, look for sources yourself. If you find an article that is bad, rewrite it yourself to make it better. Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? Antivenin 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody worked on North Asia for almost five years. There is no deadline. I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are perpetuating the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources. Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and then come back to this discussion. If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the next editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work. This is how articles get built by collaboration.
If you find multiple independent, in-depth, published sources whose authors are reliable, then the inescapable conclusion per deletion policy, is that we must keep the article, because all that needs doing is for editors to take sources in hand, hit that "edit this page" button, and make the article better; an administrator using administrator tools isn't required. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody worked on North Asia for almost five years. There is no deadline. I suggest also bearing in mind that by not looking for sources yourself you are perpetuating the situation of no-one working to improve the article with sources. Please take quarter of an hour or so to look for some sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and then come back to this discussion. If you find sources, cite them in the article, so that the next editor to come along doesn't have to repeat your work. This is how articles get built by collaboration.
- While in principle I agree that an article should be allowed to exist in a state of imperfection for an extended period of time, the principle of verifiability takes a higher priority in this case. I challenge this article for AfD in light of a notice for lack of sources which has existed on the page for over a year. This is not an unreasonable case for nomination. Further, the content is not encyclopedic for the reasons I outlined above. Spidern (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You haven't looked for sources yourself to see whether that is the case, and thus have not made a case, in accordance with deletion policy, that the subject is unverifiable. Please read the aforelinked policies and pages, as well as Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability requires that you look for sources yourself. This has been our policy on verifiability since 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information, Uncle G. I misunderstood verifiability policy. Is it possible to withdraw this AfD? Spidern (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You haven't looked for sources yourself to see whether that is the case, and thus have not made a case, in accordance with deletion policy, that the subject is unverifiable. Please read the aforelinked policies and pages, as well as Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Nominating an article for deletion on grounds of unverifiability requires that you look for sources yourself. This has been our policy on verifiability since 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Under the current circumstances, where no sources have been added to the article in over a year, should the article still be kept? Antivenin 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourselves with our Misplaced Pages:Editing policy and our Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. We allow articles to exist in a state of imperfection. We don't delete imperfect articles for them to be re-created later. We build upon what exists, and improve articles, by boldly editing them. We only delete articles if no sources actually exist at all, and it is thus impossible to write an article. AFD is not the only tool in the toolbox. Please read, and absorb, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. If you come across an article that you think does not have enough sources, look for sources yourself. If you find an article that is bad, rewrite it yourself to make it better. Writing the encyclopaedia is not somebody else's problem. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you and I change my vote to Delete. Antivenin 18:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unreferenced tag was put in place September 2007. I suggest that unless anyone adds sources now, they can do so when they recreate the article. Spidern (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, altogether possible: if the nominator wants to withdraw it, it will be withdrawn. I'd do it, except that I've never learned; the only time I did it, I accidentally closed all the nominations posted on that day's log, causing confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Consider it done. MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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.