Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Job scheduler - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spidern (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 29 October 2008 (Job scheduler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:29, 29 October 2008 by Spidern (talk | contribs) (Job scheduler)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
  • Keep sources can be added. Maybe the verify tag could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivenin (talkcontribs) 2008-10-29 17:49:55 (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)
      • 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)
          • 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)
Categories: