Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarsnap

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarsnap

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

Non notable company. Only references provided on the talk page are blogs. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I declined a speedy deletion nomination because the talk page mentions 10 pages of coverage in Linux Journal; if this is true then a cite should be possible even if unavailable online. Also LWN isn't exactly a blog. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that this article was only created three hours ago, I think the "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape" rule from WP:GD applies here. Cperciva (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(possibly COI writer - thank you for not !voting). Did you know that we've started to suggest creating new articles either in one's Sandbox, or in WP:Articles for creation process? That tends to avoid lots of hordes shouting "kill it!" --Lexein (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a COI, which is why I left a "comment" rather than a "vote". Sorry if I should have stated that more explicitly here -- I've made minor edits to a few articles but I'm very much still a wikipedia newbie. FWIW, I didn't create this article (because of the aforementioned COI) -- if I had, I would have had more content to begin with. Cperciva (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the gentle reasoning posted by Cperciva and Amatulic. Linux Journal is solid RS, and other sources exist. The nom is premature, as no proof is offered that sources establishing notability do not and cannot exist. --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) (change!vote - Also, the August 2012 Linux Journal is out with a full article about Tarsnap, full preview here. --Lexein (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The owner of the software is commenting here. That's fine but please keep WP:COI in mind. People with a direct relationship to the subject of an article are not impartial. Also, in response to Lexein, it isn't contingent upon a nonminator to "prove there are no reliable sources", that's completely backward. It's contingent upon those writing the article, you know, the redlinked SPI account who wrote this one, to establish notability. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I was referring to the non-zero burden on the nominator, as expressed in this triad from WP:DEL-REASON from WP:DEL:
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

It doesn't say "doesn't include enough RS to prove notability", it says "whose subjects fail to meet" - subjects, not ref count. This language unambiguously places an explicit non-zero burden on the nominator, as does WP:BEFORE from WP:AFD. Can't just say "not notable" until after making a non-trivial effort to find sources. If I come by and do a 30-second search and find a minimum number of RS for N, then a) the nomination is not solid and b) oppose !votes have merit. I've seen too many overeager nominations, where this and WP:BEFORE weren't respected, or perhaps, weren't seen. --Lexein (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GNG. If you found references that meet WP:RS, then vote keep and submit them here and the article will be kept. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote, noting August 2012 full article in Linux Journal, above. --Lexein (talk) 09:23, 22 August 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per [1], [2]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant, reliable sources and company founder is notable also (former FreeBSD Security Officer). Noadsplease (talk) 23:24, 27 August 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.