Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 2 April 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Note regarding refactoring of comments

The comments I initially placed here have been moved to the proposed for 'deletion' page. rickreed (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Hello,

I work on behalf of Airbus to develop Air Traffic Control applications. We use Pragmadev RTDS tool for many years to develop these applications. RTDS is one of the rare tools that support SDL notation and can simulate model and generate code. Moreover, RTDS is now used in both industrial (avionics, telecommunication...) and research domains (formal proof...).

From my point of view, I think it is relevant to have a dedicated wiki page for RTDS.

Regards Julien Honore (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability tag restored

The notability tag has been restored.  The community has already spoken at the AfD, there was no determination that the topic is not notable, and placing such a tag on the article now is not actionable.  Regarding the claim that citations don't count as references in consideration of wp:notability, this view is without merit.  wp:notability exists independently of the sources in a Misplaced Pages article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Note that in WP:BRD, discussion occurs after the R.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's only one reference, and that's self-published. The AfD discussion did not result in a keep, it was "no consensus" to delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And so you "discuss" and then revert when you don't get your way? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part of the D in WP:BRD do you not want to understand?  You were bold, I reverted, there is not another R there.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of not getting my way is escalation.  It is not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You did make several inaccurate statements though and you've corrected none of them:

1. The community did not speak unanimously. Several editors stated that the article does not meet notability requirements that is why that tag was added. That is why that tag has merit.
2. You didn't add a single reference, you added "further reading", and you added it in the wrong location.

Rather than discuss this, you decided to remove it. That's edit warring. That's a problem.

Removing the other clearly correct tags is even more wrong, but I don't think I need to explain why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have copied a post on my talk page here:
  

== "Further reading" is not "references" ==

You're mistaken. Please self-revert and discuss as requested and stop edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the AfD was inconclusive and did not end in a "keep" vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• You became agitated at AfD because you thought that when I said "material/information" I was saying "articles".  Now you don't understand or haven't taken the time to research the relationship between references and citations, which is that they are synonyms except that it is a Misplaced Pages convention to refer to the listings under Further Reading as citations.  However, they are still properly called references.  The idea that references/citations don't count because they are listed in the Further reading section I have already stated above has no merit.  As per WP:N, wp:notability only requires evidence that sources exist, not their actual citation.  I have restored a consensus version of the article in response to your request to self-revert.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't become agitated at all, I simply tagged the article correctly and stated the obvious.

Notability does not exist just because you say it does. Several editors disagreed that there was notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1. There was no determination at the AfD that the topic was non-notable, so your view was not sustained.
2. Adding a tag now is not actionable, and you haven't attempted to refute this point.
3. There are already 13 references/citations in the article.  How many do you want?
4. You've not explained why we should keep the tag on the article while you build consensus to put it there.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1. No, you have been removing the tag because of the AfD. WP:N is clear and it applies here. You can't use the AfD discussion to play both sides of your discussion.
2. Adding a tag is fully actionable: fix the problem as tagged.
3. There is one, reference: http://www.pragmadev.com/company.html There are a dozen items in the "further reading" section. None of them are references to anything. However, if you continue to insist on stating that they are somehow references, I can add a {{tl:citation style}} instead of the {{one source}} and {{ref improve}}. You'll have to prove that they reference somthing though.
4. Tags don't need consensus when their presence is obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Above you state that "Several editors disagreed that there was notability."  Be specific, how many is "several"?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You're capable at looking at the AfD discussion. You're capable of counting. I'm not your servant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I examined the AfD before I asked the question.  I only found one editor other than yourself.  Why did you say, "Several editors disagreed that there was notability."?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you examined the AfD. Where exactly did you see that there was any discussion of notability? There was edit that specifically stated that the subject "Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources". No one else actually provided any 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent from the subject. That's why two "votes", as you called them, were able to prevent the article from being closed as keep. The remainder of the Real Time Developer Studio user group that showed-up to vote didn't offer any either. It does not meet the notability criteria based on that alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is "several editors" "two editors"?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. I should have clarified. I confused this AfD with another that was ongoing at the same time. There were only two who correctly used Misplaced Pages guidelines to request its inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'd love to continue this useless discussion about users, which is against WP:NPA, why don't we discuss the subject's notability. Where are those "references"? I didn't see them get added. Many of the items in the further reading don't even mention Real Time Developer Studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection requested

A request was made at WP:RFPP for indefinite full protection.  The request was rejected by two admins; however, one of the two admins decided to add a one-week protection.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreement that there is no consensus to add the notability tag

This edit documents that there is no consensus to add the notability tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That shows nothing other than I added it. Why are you intentionally misrepresenting information? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So is your point that your edit was not what you intended, and that there is something else, in your opinion, that is the consensus version of the article?  Please do explain.  Unscintillating (talk)

No. The edit does not show that it wasn't against consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is a triple negative with an unclear antecedent for the "it".  Are you redacting diff=602067801 or not?  If you are, the admin who froze the article based on that diff should know.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were smart. I won't make that mistake again.

Let me make this clear, does this article meet notability guidelines? If it does, then you should have no problems with providing the material to support that. If it does not, then it should be tagged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We just had a one-month AfD discussion, and in that month only one editor agreed with you about notability.  There are currently 13 references/citations in the article.  These references were reported at the AfD.  Now you've escalated by adding a reference to a penis in your last edit comment.  For your part you have told me I was "wrong", "dead wrong", other escalatory language such as that I have made edits to get my way, that I've made inaccurate statements that I have not corrected, that I've edit warred, and that I haven't discussed on the talk page here.  Above you made a reference to WP:NPA because I asked three times before I got a clarification for a statement you made.  You have templated my talk page.  In this thread you've used the accusatory language of "intentional misrepresentation", not "smart", and now the penis thing.  You first started using escalatory language when I researched the relationship between WP:N and entries in lists, and reported those guidelines at the AfD.  In this thread, I still don't know if you are redacting diff=602067801.  Where do you think this is headed?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)