Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooper Selection

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper Selection[edit]

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

Reason This is a page created for a marginally notable tech demo which is yet, if ever, to receive serious implementation in products and achieve recognisable status as a distinct, mature user interface technology. The page was created just days after Daniel Hooper demoed this technology online, in an apparent response to the positive feedback he received. The page was created in part to capitalise on this feedback and spread the idea. However this is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do - Wikipedia articles are supposed to recognise established, notable events, ideas and things. "Hooper Selection" does not meet this criteria.Mglmpr 24 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28. Snotbot t • c » 01:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Advertising. From the article: After an enthusiastic reaction from tech press Hooper coined the title and created a Wikipedia page in an attempt to legitimate his project. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight: I'm the original author of the article, and have just posted a comment to the talk page explaining my rationale for creating it, which you can read for details. Daniel neither created the article nor coined the term "Hooper Selection" - these were both my doing (he changed the name of the video to Hooper Selection after I told him about the article). In the few emails I've exchanged with Daniel he has come across as a very modest person and not at all out to promote himself. Any blame for the article's contents should rest with me. I'm also not opposed to it being deleted if people genuinely feel it's not appropriate for wikipedia. Kellypmk 30 May 2012. —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just searching for more recent material on this concept and found the following press release from Georgia Tech University: [1] which mentions, among other things, the origin of the wikipedia article. I also found articles describing two production implementations of the concept, in Codea [2] (an app on the app store) and SwipeSelection [3] (a jailbreak extension) (disclaimer: I happen to know one of the authors of Codea but have had no involvement its development myself)

I don't think Mglmpr is entirely correct in stating that the idea has yet to receive "serious implementation" given that it's now available in production applications. However he is right about the fact that it is not yet a maturely, widely deployed technology. I'm not certain what the threshold of adoption of a technology is for it to meet the requirements of wikipedia; I'll leave it for more experienced wikipedians to judge.

Kellypmk —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose you were just feeling enthusiastic - I should apologise for unfairly depicting Daniel as self-promoting. I still think the technology is not notable enough for a wiki article yet. Thanks.Mglmpr 24 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted :) Thanks for your understanding. I can accept deletion on the grounds of the technology not being sufficiently mature or widely deployed yet. I think the situation will be different by the end of this year, so perhaps at that time it might be suitable for inclusion. --Kellypmk (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible this could become notable in the future but the sources don't appear to exist to support notability now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Msnicki (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. Maratrean (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Georgia Tech and Tech Crunch refs establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. The Georgia Tech article is basically an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY and not helpful in establishing notability. The Tech Crunch article isn't about either the subject or the subject's work; it's actually about somebody else's work that may have borrowed some of the ideas (but who knows if the author of the new product would even agree with that.) Msnicki (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interview by a journalist indicates that the topic was of sufficient notability for the journalist bother to do the interview. Even if Hooper selection is not the focus of the TechCrunch article, there is significant coverage of it in the article. Also what User:Tgeairn says below. --Kvng (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient independent coverage (as above). The description and operation sections could use sourcing, but that lack is not sufficient for removal of the article. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't remove articles simply because sources have not yet been cited. But they have to exist. Which sources in particular are relying on? Msnicki (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Codea piece is written by a regular appadvice editor, and establishes third-party notice of the idea and name. The TechCrunch article is similar in that it establishes notability for the concept. Neither of these articles would establish sufficient notability for a product, but I am viewing the article from the perspective of a notable idea. For WP:GNG, we need significant coverage (the above plus MacWorld and others); and independent reliable sources (the examples I have given are all third-party and are written by paid editorial staff). The oddity here is that the actual term appears to have been "created" on Wikipedia (resulting in circular references such as the MacWorld article referencing WP), as opposed to outside. It may be that a move to "Swipe selection" or some other term will be in order once the idea is further incorporated into the marketplace and products; but until that time, the term "Hooper Selection" looks like the name for the idea. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given are not sufficiently reliable to establish notability. Spinning Spark 14:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Interesting, but not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium." I'm seeing nothing linked on the page which meets WP:IRS standards and a reasonable search doesn't find anything non-trivial. Only a couple of the sources even mention the phrase "Hooper selection", and the concept is certainly NOT YET the subject of coverage by multiple independent sources directly detailing. Might be one day... Page creator admits above the term is invented by himself; page creator admits lack of independence from the concept creator. No objection to userfying for improvement and later assessment. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (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.