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 was accepted on 30 September 2014 by reviewer
Kvng (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles
Mike Rozlog
Mike Rozlog here, thanks for the vote of confidence! Since I'm the CEO and we have a lot of customers still using dBASE and dBASE for DOS so the .dbf file format is still very relevant. Actually when you look at what gets search on google the number one thing is .dbf files. That is the reason for the article, we have a lot of people asking questions about .dbf files and I thought my details would be very useful to many people.
@
Czarkoff: I feel a bit
bitten by your decline message. Fortunately
I am no newbie. You might consider using less aggressive wording in your declines.
Regarding notably. I do believe a file format supported by many database systems is independently notable. Did you base your assessment of notability purely on the references currently in the draft or did you do any research of your own to try and establish notability? Both here and in AfD we're primarily trying to assess notability of the subject. Articles on notable subjects should not be rejected or deleted simply because the authors fail to make a good case for notability.
My question about whether you've done any research is not rhetorical. If you have not done the research, I am happy to do it and add some better references to the article. Please respond and let me know. ~
KvnG16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Kvng: Sorry, I didn't intend to bite you. Of course file format may be individually notable. Still, to pass AfC a draft should readily demonstrate notability, and it is the job of draft's author. I did some research a while ago (when the message was first left at
WT:WikiProject Computing), and I did not find anything I could add back then. May be you'll be luckier, or just more patient. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Czarkoff: I've added a couple references in the new Further reading section. This is a historic topic so the internet is probably not the first place to look for sources. I think this demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable source. Does this sufficiently improve expected outcome at AfD for you? ~
KvnG20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Kvng: Sorry, but I don't really think that these additions constitute significant coverage, particularily for establishing separate notability. I don't think that coverage of "Encyclopedia of Microcomputers" constitutes significant coverage due to its size and depth; encyclopedias are tretiary sources, so strictly speaking this source does not contribute to passing
WP:GNG at all. "Visualizing Data", if page 326 does not contain more substantial description of the format (unlikely, judging on context), also does not cover the subject in significant detail.
FWIW I don't think that notability problem is the biggest problem here currently. Most of material from
Level 5 DOS Headers section and below violates
WP:NOTMANUAL; it belongs to some technical journal, website or other special-purpose medium.
I really believe that this content is not worth preservation. Instead, if you are interested in development of this topic on Wikipedia, I would suggest to improve the coverage of this format at
Dbase § File formats, so that eventually it could be split from
Dbase article. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
22:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
We need to focus on notability because, assuming there aren't any copyright or BLP issues, the goal here at AfC is get articles on notable topics into mainspace where they can be improved. If you believe the quality of an article needs to meet a certain threshold before acceptance, that's something we should work through at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Yes, I missed the LoC reference, and I find it a strong one. As to
WP:SIGCOV, it requires that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and I don't see much detail in short passages from these books. (It is not my personal preference, but well-established practice: see
this recent AfD for example.) Down two bullets GNG says '"Sources" should be secondary sources', so considering tretiary sources, particularily so narrow in their scope, as proof of notability is direct violation of this guideline. Yes, AfC process has some local, relaxed understanding of notability concept, and that is why so many articles from AfC get ultimately deleted. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
00:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)reply
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 was accepted on 30 September 2014 by reviewer
Kvng (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles
Mike Rozlog
Mike Rozlog here, thanks for the vote of confidence! Since I'm the CEO and we have a lot of customers still using dBASE and dBASE for DOS so the .dbf file format is still very relevant. Actually when you look at what gets search on google the number one thing is .dbf files. That is the reason for the article, we have a lot of people asking questions about .dbf files and I thought my details would be very useful to many people.
@
Czarkoff: I feel a bit
bitten by your decline message. Fortunately
I am no newbie. You might consider using less aggressive wording in your declines.
Regarding notably. I do believe a file format supported by many database systems is independently notable. Did you base your assessment of notability purely on the references currently in the draft or did you do any research of your own to try and establish notability? Both here and in AfD we're primarily trying to assess notability of the subject. Articles on notable subjects should not be rejected or deleted simply because the authors fail to make a good case for notability.
My question about whether you've done any research is not rhetorical. If you have not done the research, I am happy to do it and add some better references to the article. Please respond and let me know. ~
KvnG16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Kvng: Sorry, I didn't intend to bite you. Of course file format may be individually notable. Still, to pass AfC a draft should readily demonstrate notability, and it is the job of draft's author. I did some research a while ago (when the message was first left at
WT:WikiProject Computing), and I did not find anything I could add back then. May be you'll be luckier, or just more patient. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Czarkoff: I've added a couple references in the new Further reading section. This is a historic topic so the internet is probably not the first place to look for sources. I think this demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable source. Does this sufficiently improve expected outcome at AfD for you? ~
KvnG20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Kvng: Sorry, but I don't really think that these additions constitute significant coverage, particularily for establishing separate notability. I don't think that coverage of "Encyclopedia of Microcomputers" constitutes significant coverage due to its size and depth; encyclopedias are tretiary sources, so strictly speaking this source does not contribute to passing
WP:GNG at all. "Visualizing Data", if page 326 does not contain more substantial description of the format (unlikely, judging on context), also does not cover the subject in significant detail.
FWIW I don't think that notability problem is the biggest problem here currently. Most of material from
Level 5 DOS Headers section and below violates
WP:NOTMANUAL; it belongs to some technical journal, website or other special-purpose medium.
I really believe that this content is not worth preservation. Instead, if you are interested in development of this topic on Wikipedia, I would suggest to improve the coverage of this format at
Dbase § File formats, so that eventually it could be split from
Dbase article. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
22:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)reply
We need to focus on notability because, assuming there aren't any copyright or BLP issues, the goal here at AfC is get articles on notable topics into mainspace where they can be improved. If you believe the quality of an article needs to meet a certain threshold before acceptance, that's something we should work through at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Yes, I missed the LoC reference, and I find it a strong one. As to
WP:SIGCOV, it requires that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and I don't see much detail in short passages from these books. (It is not my personal preference, but well-established practice: see
this recent AfD for example.) Down two bullets GNG says '"Sources" should be secondary sources', so considering tretiary sources, particularily so narrow in their scope, as proof of notability is direct violation of this guideline. Yes, AfC process has some local, relaxed understanding of notability concept, and that is why so many articles from AfC get ultimately deleted. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
00:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)reply