Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:52, 29 March 2022

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. Arbitrarily0  13:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuttle Inc.

Shuttle Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article has been tagged as unreferenced for six months. Notability is doubtful, and reliable third-party sources (on the internet at least) few and far between. Taiwantaffy (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no sign that this article is going to be improved to meet WP:COMPANY. patsw (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep. There was never any doubt this was a real company with non-trivial products. The only question was whether I and the other reviewers could determine if there was a hope that motivated editors would do some homework and add references after 4 years of neglect in doing so. While I don't think this article is ever going to improve to be on a par with ASUS, I no longer support deletion. patsw (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not understand the relevance of the fact that the article in question has been left unreferenced for six months to notability. The reason for it being unreferenced for six months can be attributed to a number of possibilities, not just the lack of notability. Addressing that, I am interested in the nominator's methodology. Which search engine and what search terms were used? If "Shuttle Inc." was the search term, as is suggested by the find sources template, I would suggest that "Shuttle" in conjuction with the terms relating to Shuttle's products be used instead. The reason for this is because "Shuttle Inc." is one of those delightful invented-for-Misplaced Pages disambiguations that no one uses. The PC magazines appear to exclusively use "Shuttle", as evidenced by the numerous product reviews that can be found through Google Books, by using the term "Shuttle" and various combinations of terms including but not limited to: case, PC, review, SFF, etc. Also of interest are snippets from: * Popular Mechanics, Jun. 2005, p. 165, answer by a staff writer to a reader submitted question: "...SFF PCs made a splash when Shuttle showed its first one several years ago. They are more widely known among do-it-yourself enthusiasts..."; * p. 311 of Building the Perfect PC, Rober B. Thompson, O'Reilly Media, 2006; * p. 229 of Mike Meyers' A+ Guide to PC Hardware, Michael Meyers, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003. From these limited examples, I am not convinced that Shuttle is an obscure one-person shop that has a faboi or two pushing an article on Misplaced Pages. But I am not a PC enthusiast, I only know of the company by chance glancing through some PC magazine a while ago. Maybe those who are can make a better case for this company. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reliable, third-party references establish notability. The fact that these have been missing for some time despite the article having been tagged is suggestive of (though not proof of) non-notability. You make a good point on the company/article name, and if someone can use a more thorough web search to establish notability, then I'll be happy to see the article remain. Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. The remedy to a complaint that an article's content is unreferenced is to find those references, add them to the article, and answer in this AfD that WP:N criteria is satisfied. Noting its potential for becoming a good article after several years of indifference is not an answer to an AfD nomination. patsw (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment - Patsw, if your comment was directed at me, I am offended. My intention was point out to AfD participants who may not have any familiarity with the subject that using "Shuttle Inc." as a search term may skew results. I did so in good faith because I believe that deletion is a serious matter that should be handled in a manner that reduces false positives. I believe that my comments are appropriate for an AfD debate, and I have yet to see any indication that it is not from other participants, including the nominiator. If I have in whatever way made inappropriate remarks, then I would like to be notified about them at my talk page. Rilak (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • "How have you looked for sources?" is a valid question to ask. Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy is unambiguous about the requirement for looking, as indeed are the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Editing policy, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. We don't delete because no-one out of our volunteer editor corps has seen fit to work on an article, and many articles grow from incomplete stubs through an organic and incremental growth process. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I vote delete on everything. I demand everything have sources demonstrate notability. This is one case where I know something is wrong. Shuttle has been almost synonymous with SFF PC in last decade. So I say keep, somebody do homework. Miami33139 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Question What supports your expectation that homework will be done? As it stands, this anonymously created article in 2006 hasn't been improved in any way to meet WP:N by any of its editors in years. What is incorrect in the above nomination? patsw (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand your apprehension as the current state of this article meets my own deletion criteria and there is nothing wrong with your nomination. I normally insist that even proven notable subject matters incorporate proof into their article before I change AfD opinion to keep. This is 1% opportunity where I ignore my own and wikipedia criteria.

      Sources, and awards, can be easily gained from these two resources, which link to their third-party coverage. http://us.shuttle.com/In_News.aspx http://us.shuttle.com/Awards.aspx There are plenty here and this is US only and this is last year only. Miami33139 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Our editing and deletion policies support this. The major deficiency with what Miami33139 said is the invocation of "somebody". Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. It's written by everyone, and that includes the people who spend time wondering aloud "why hasn't somebody improved this article?", rather than realizing that Misplaced Pages is written by you, and {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Miami33139, this business would appear to me to have sufficient technical and cultural importance to qualify. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Can you quote something from the article that supports your statement? In my reading the article lacks such statements and, additionally, such statements would need independent sourcing. patsw (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Shuttle + SFF yields more than 1000 Google News Archive hits, and just leafing through them I can see that this business has been recognized for technical innovation for boards for small format PCs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • See WP:GOOGLETEST for an explanation of why 1000 Google hits does not mean that a topic is included merely by that fact alone. The potential for recognition is insufficient. The actual recognition, as you put it, has to be in the article itself, not merely asserted in the AfD, for the article to be included in Misplaced Pages, and that means added in now during this AfD. patsw (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I tend towards the opinion that there is no deadline, and specifically that AfD is not for the purpose of forcing immediate improvements for inadequate articles on otherwise worthy subjects under pain of deletion. It strikes me that this business is a worthy subject, and the article is relatively free from promotional POV, sales blather, or promotional nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Patsw, I agree with you. That is my own criteria that references must be in the article itself and not simply asserted during the AfD. I am hypocrite because I am doing exactly that right here. Misplaced Pages sucks. Miami33139 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • What you should be doing here is learning why your approach is and has been wrong, from this experience of the shoe being on the other foot. If you do learn, you'll find that Misplaced Pages doesn't suck, but that, rather, people who don't put the effort in of looking for sources are being zero help to AFD and to the encyclopaedia in general; and that what both AFD and Misplaced Pages in general always need are people who are prepared to actually do that "homework" themselves, rather than treating it as Somebody Else's Problem and treating every article as if it had Featured Article status. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
          • My approach is not wrong. Nobody asked for your big mouth to show up and comment about my criteria. Don't tell me what I should be doing. What is your comment about this article, instead of comment about me? What you should be doing is stating your opinion that this article should be kept or deleted and then back that up with why. This is not the place subjecting other editors to your paternalism. Comment on content, not the contributor. Miami33139 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Wrong. What has to be shown at AFD is that multiple independent reliable sources exist, covering the subect in depth, demonstrating that an article can be written. Please familiarize yourself with our editing and deletion policies. Your understanding of them, as well as your practice of them, is incorrect. You are meant to do more than solely "read the article" in order to put deletion policy into practice. For starters you are meant to look for sources yourself, which includes performing such Google searches (amongst other things). So you can start by doing the searches that other editors have mentioned here. Stop and pay particular attention when you reach the aforementioned books by Mike Meyers and by Robert and Barbara Thompson. Stop again when you reach the book by Hardwidge. If you don't do the searches yourself, then your opinion that there's "no sign that this article is going to be improved" will be read as being basically without foundation, because you've not put in the effort to determine whether that is in actual fact the case. Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Wrong yourself. The burden to source material is on the author, not the deleter. This can only make sense. The author has the knowledge to find references. The deleter cannot be presumed to have knowledge and a lay reader should be able to trust our material - and both delete what is not referenced. That include whole article when article unsourced! Do not be so presumptuous that everyone agree with your opinion about responsibility. Miami33139 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pat, I have added two references from the URL I previously gave you. Two (multiple) reviews or awards from independent reliable sources seems to be the minimum to keep articles. I generally prefer more, but I have added these two in order to get past the criteria that refernecs should be in the article by the close of AfD, which is something we agree on. Miami33139 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 26 July 2010 (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.