Ian Long was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 September 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Blob Tree. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This appears to be spam. The majority of references are from inappropriate sources, including apparent spam sites and first-party promotional sources. The news references only seem to mention the notion of the Blob Tree peripherally; the bachelor's thesis is perhaps the best source on this, but it by no means qualifies an article for notability on Wikipedia. Anyone can write a bachelor's thesis. I would nominate this for deletion soon unless someone can provide at least some better sources. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm what sources you deem to be spam sites? Just because the majority of sources are news articles this doesn’t deem the item spam. There are many other sources that one could pull from. Wikijohnword (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on Wikipedia need to be third-party, independent and reliable. On the citations, [1] is from a medium blog, which is not reliable. [2] is from the website of the subject itself. [3] appears to be from an Indonesian social media website, which is not reliable. I am not sure what [4] is. [5] appears to be from a Hong Kong online news site, which I think could be considered a good source. [6] appears to be from another tabloid. [7] appears to be from a spam blog. [8] appears to be from a social media blog. [9] is the subject's creator's website. [10] is a small English newspaper describing what went on at a local school.
Sources' coverage of a subject must be substantial in nature and not passing. I don't see how any of these sources indicate the notability of the subject of this article other than the fact that there is some discussion on it. For this article to stand on its own, I believe that there needs to be more sources that show, for example, the spread of the usage of this Blob Tree tool, its impact and so on. What I'm seeing now is a collection of poor sources that discuss the subject in passing detail and evince no significance of the subject other than it exists. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawkin Verbier, it doesn't sound like you've looked for better sources. That's fine, you have no obligation to do so but it is something that needs to be done WP:BEFORE anyone makes a move to delete an article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
