Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event Standard Syndication

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. slakr^\ talk / 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Event Standard Syndication

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

This article replaces a different one on the same subject which had already been deleted via WP:PROD because it was promotional and because the subject lacked notability (see User talk:Hypecal helper). This latest recreation doesn't have the promo issues, but from what I can tell the subject still hasn't achieved any coverage in reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strict inclusionist, I think this resource is valid in its existence despite its niche notoriety and should be valuable to store in a reference text bound only by digital storage constraints, so long as it speaks accurately to the topic. In a way I am choosing to Ignore all rules. I think Wikipedia is better by capturing the full breadth of human expression. As noted, there are no promotional issues. Further, I added references to the originators of this xml file format, a company named Hypecal from Barcelona, Spain. A record of presenting this file format is provided by coverage in a Spanish online magazine. I cited documentation of the open source MIT license applied to implementation software written in php and ruby, works published in the nature of their medium. Mattsenate (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure about the reliability of the Spanish source, but this is the entirety of what it has to say about ESS: "Hypecal es una empresa que ha creado un nuevo estándar, llamado ESS, que permite compartir y publicar información sobre eventos y actualizarla en tiempo real." Unfortunately, a single sentence cannot count as "significant coverage" as required by the notability guideline. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd agree with the sentiments expressed above but the internet is littered with the sad remnants of bright ideas. When I stumbled across this issue I was excited at first because it's an area of great interest to me, until I saw that there has been virtually zero activity since the launch a year ago and virtually zero references to it from third parties. This is yet another dead parrot, and not even noteworthy for being dead. It never even got off the ground. andy (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been commits to the php library as recent as 3 months ago and the wordpress plugin as recent as 5 months ago. I refrain from judging the work, other than the fact that open source software developers have published this XML file format and provided implementation libraries with open source licenses, which apparently was funded and supported by a company, as noted in the article. Mattsenate (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but look how little coverage there is. Reading between the lines, this is a startup (which we don't publicise in wikipedia) that's trying to create a market and is offering a data protocol for free to try to jump start the market. Good luck to them but I still see no signs of notability. andy (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame if the work of open source software developers, publishing content in the media and along standards of their community of practice, is not considered notable because of the mode by which the development is funded. I thought stating this explicitly may provide sufficient context. Mattsenate (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails to meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). While I'm sometimes sympathetic to wanting to ignore some rules, as Mattsenate suggests, or stretch/relax rules, in this case the topic is not remotely close to meeting notability guidelines. Agyle (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2014 (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.