The result was keep. A good example of why nominating articles for deletion when they are less than an hour old is poor form. Stifle ( talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced, unref'd, fails to meet any known notability criteria Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the third attempt in 30 minutes to delete this page, and I have spent more time staving off attempts to delete it than actually writing it. I might be able to actually reference the article if I were allowed to work on it.
This behaviour is getting out of control and is highly detrimental to the encouragement of contributions. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am grateful that time has been given. The first two delete markers were put up by people who claimed it was 'obvious' that the article exists to promote a commercial product. The first line the article says "BeerXML is a free, fully defined XML data description standard..." So its obvious that the first two attempts at speedy deletion were utterly wrong. Who are these people? The third delete marker appeared before I had finished dealing with the first two. Notability is in the eye of the beholder in this case. However BeerXML is used by several web sites, several software packages (commercial and open source) and an increasing series of apps. Between them these sites and applications have 6 figures of users. I don't know if that helps.
I think I will probably refrain from starting new pages in future as there seem to be a small army of people who revel in deleting the efforts of others. Having looked at the user page for one individual today I was shocked at the nastiness and abusiveness they displayed towards those who enquired about their actions. Frankly, they seem unhinged. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
By 'offensive' what you mean is that you don't like being called out when you are acting incorrectly. I understand perfectly well what 'promotional' means. Explain exactly what or who is being promoted here? As for notability, that is a matter for consensus, not for you to simply go round putting speedy delete markers on articles you are not interested in, even when you patently don't have the first idea what the article is about and before the article is even half an hour old. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
After reading G11 again (copied below) its clear that its use to justify deletion is wrong on at least two counts.
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.
Therefore even if BeerXML were a company or a product (as was incorrectly asserted by the deleters) it would still have been wrong to apply a speedy delete marker. Even if it were 'exclusively promotional' (and it isn't remotely promotional but heavily descriptive) it 'does not qualify for this criterion'. If one is to set oneself up as the arbiter of what should or should not be deleted, then a scrupulous attention to the criteria should be adhered to.
You can't make assertions that an open data format is a product and then expect to have the power to delete articles on that subject because you are simply factually wrong. On that basis the articles on XML and HTML would have to be deleted, but I doubt you would try to get away with that.
The question here is notability. The first two attempts to delete the article did not cite notability, so falling back on it now would seem to suggest that those two people just really want the article deleted.
Notability is accepted or rejected by consensus and is a matter of opinion. Judging whether BeerXML is notable or not, according to the criteria set by Wikipedia, depends on a basic understanding of what it is. If sheer number of users was the sole criteria then it would pass. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see you won't be happy until the article is deleted so I suggest you just go ahead and do it as you have been on a mission to do so since 5 minutes after I started it. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am the lead developer of FOSS software Brewtarget. BeerXML is a standard among many different and competing beer softwares. This article is in no way promotional or beneficial to any of them in particular. This is a very good attempt to make an unbiased description of the standard, and is worthy of being a Wikipedia article. Please let the development of this article continue. Rocketman768 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the keep. I'd be very happy if others were able to improve the article and any defincies in its content are down to me. Of course any deficiencies in the standard are a different matter. I note from the development forum that a major revision has been proposed and is under discussion. Those advocating a fundamental rewrite are prepared to sacrifice backwards compatibility to achieve it so it seems you are not alone in your reservations. * Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Its worth remembering that, per Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability, Article content does not determine notabilty. As it says:
So we can now end the stream of requests to dot the article with cites which are then dismissed as not being enough. The only place left now for those who advocate deletion is the notability of the subject itself. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.''
You are of course welcome to find better references on notability than CNN, Ars Technica, Hexus, Medium.com and Linux.com. The other references in the article are to back up individual statements in the article and do not and were not intended to have any bearing on notability in either direction (as per the above), as I suspect you know.
I see that you have put a tag for 'Attention By Experts On The Subject' To quote the tag itself Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. I note that you added that tag without recourse to the talk page and without giving reasons. I also note that you now hold the position that the article should be deleted for lack of notability while holding the opposing position that more experts on the subject would help improve the article. I also note that you are tagging the article unilateraly but not making any contributions to it. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty Its nice to have someone on here with a potentially more misunderstandable username than mine. The raggedness of the structure of the article and the sprawl of this discussion are due to a)probably me not writing well but mostly b) never having the time because of a blizzard of userpage tags, rfcs and demands for ever more sources from the two users who started this AfD in the first place.
I'd like to suggest that a move to userspace would deny the other people working on the article their space to do so and also the opportunity for new contributions.
The situation with perhaps too many references is really a tidyup issue and AFD is not tidyup. It came about because I was trying to satisfy the movers of the AFD that the subject is notable. The use of bold by me was a mistake made in frustration that our two friends (one of whom is an admin) refuse to concede or even discuss the factual point that Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability.
The article is disjointed, the latter part reads too much like a manual and doubtless many other things can be changed. First we must get this AFD out of the way, which is holding back further contributions. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to thank Rocketman768, Andy Dingley, David Gerard, StuartCarter, Ucanlookitup, Erock, Robert McClenon, Hugh, Sturmvogel 66 and United States Man who along with me believe that the article should be retained. Its true that the article needs more clarity, some reformatting and some pruning.
However the issue here is deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I believe that is now comprehensively settled.
I'm going to hazard a guess that Deb and Fortuna still want the article deleted as they have done since the first day it went up. As they have failed to convince anyone else of the merit of removing the article from Wikipedia, I think that its now time the marker was removed and those who are interested in building the article can get on with that job.
As an aside it is regrettable that this dispute has led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle against me personally and an attempt to delete Broadcast Markup Language. I'm very sorry that the contributors to that page found their contributions under threat as part of this dispute. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dialectric. Will this paragraph from the Hexus article by Nathan Ingraham help? Under the heading:
There we have the developers of the kit talking about their integration of the standard into that kit for the purposes they themselves describe. Is that enough? Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The result was keep. A good example of why nominating articles for deletion when they are less than an hour old is poor form. Stifle ( talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Unsourced, unref'd, fails to meet any known notability criteria Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the third attempt in 30 minutes to delete this page, and I have spent more time staving off attempts to delete it than actually writing it. I might be able to actually reference the article if I were allowed to work on it.
This behaviour is getting out of control and is highly detrimental to the encouragement of contributions. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am grateful that time has been given. The first two delete markers were put up by people who claimed it was 'obvious' that the article exists to promote a commercial product. The first line the article says "BeerXML is a free, fully defined XML data description standard..." So its obvious that the first two attempts at speedy deletion were utterly wrong. Who are these people? The third delete marker appeared before I had finished dealing with the first two. Notability is in the eye of the beholder in this case. However BeerXML is used by several web sites, several software packages (commercial and open source) and an increasing series of apps. Between them these sites and applications have 6 figures of users. I don't know if that helps.
I think I will probably refrain from starting new pages in future as there seem to be a small army of people who revel in deleting the efforts of others. Having looked at the user page for one individual today I was shocked at the nastiness and abusiveness they displayed towards those who enquired about their actions. Frankly, they seem unhinged. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
By 'offensive' what you mean is that you don't like being called out when you are acting incorrectly. I understand perfectly well what 'promotional' means. Explain exactly what or who is being promoted here? As for notability, that is a matter for consensus, not for you to simply go round putting speedy delete markers on articles you are not interested in, even when you patently don't have the first idea what the article is about and before the article is even half an hour old. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 15:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
After reading G11 again (copied below) its clear that its use to justify deletion is wrong on at least two counts.
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.
Therefore even if BeerXML were a company or a product (as was incorrectly asserted by the deleters) it would still have been wrong to apply a speedy delete marker. Even if it were 'exclusively promotional' (and it isn't remotely promotional but heavily descriptive) it 'does not qualify for this criterion'. If one is to set oneself up as the arbiter of what should or should not be deleted, then a scrupulous attention to the criteria should be adhered to.
You can't make assertions that an open data format is a product and then expect to have the power to delete articles on that subject because you are simply factually wrong. On that basis the articles on XML and HTML would have to be deleted, but I doubt you would try to get away with that.
The question here is notability. The first two attempts to delete the article did not cite notability, so falling back on it now would seem to suggest that those two people just really want the article deleted.
Notability is accepted or rejected by consensus and is a matter of opinion. Judging whether BeerXML is notable or not, according to the criteria set by Wikipedia, depends on a basic understanding of what it is. If sheer number of users was the sole criteria then it would pass. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can see you won't be happy until the article is deleted so I suggest you just go ahead and do it as you have been on a mission to do so since 5 minutes after I started it. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 22:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am the lead developer of FOSS software Brewtarget. BeerXML is a standard among many different and competing beer softwares. This article is in no way promotional or beneficial to any of them in particular. This is a very good attempt to make an unbiased description of the standard, and is worthy of being a Wikipedia article. Please let the development of this article continue. Rocketman768 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the keep. I'd be very happy if others were able to improve the article and any defincies in its content are down to me. Of course any deficiencies in the standard are a different matter. I note from the development forum that a major revision has been proposed and is under discussion. Those advocating a fundamental rewrite are prepared to sacrifice backwards compatibility to achieve it so it seems you are not alone in your reservations. * Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Its worth remembering that, per Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability, Article content does not determine notabilty. As it says:
So we can now end the stream of requests to dot the article with cites which are then dismissed as not being enough. The only place left now for those who advocate deletion is the notability of the subject itself. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.''
You are of course welcome to find better references on notability than CNN, Ars Technica, Hexus, Medium.com and Linux.com. The other references in the article are to back up individual statements in the article and do not and were not intended to have any bearing on notability in either direction (as per the above), as I suspect you know.
I see that you have put a tag for 'Attention By Experts On The Subject' To quote the tag itself Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. I note that you added that tag without recourse to the talk page and without giving reasons. I also note that you now hold the position that the article should be deleted for lack of notability while holding the opposing position that more experts on the subject would help improve the article. I also note that you are tagging the article unilateraly but not making any contributions to it. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Randykitty Its nice to have someone on here with a potentially more misunderstandable username than mine. The raggedness of the structure of the article and the sprawl of this discussion are due to a)probably me not writing well but mostly b) never having the time because of a blizzard of userpage tags, rfcs and demands for ever more sources from the two users who started this AfD in the first place.
I'd like to suggest that a move to userspace would deny the other people working on the article their space to do so and also the opportunity for new contributions.
The situation with perhaps too many references is really a tidyup issue and AFD is not tidyup. It came about because I was trying to satisfy the movers of the AFD that the subject is notable. The use of bold by me was a mistake made in frustration that our two friends (one of whom is an admin) refuse to concede or even discuss the factual point that Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability.
The article is disjointed, the latter part reads too much like a manual and doubtless many other things can be changed. First we must get this AFD out of the way, which is holding back further contributions. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to thank Rocketman768, Andy Dingley, David Gerard, StuartCarter, Ucanlookitup, Erock, Robert McClenon, Hugh, Sturmvogel 66 and United States Man who along with me believe that the article should be retained. Its true that the article needs more clarity, some reformatting and some pruning.
However the issue here is deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I believe that is now comprehensively settled.
I'm going to hazard a guess that Deb and Fortuna still want the article deleted as they have done since the first day it went up. As they have failed to convince anyone else of the merit of removing the article from Wikipedia, I think that its now time the marker was removed and those who are interested in building the article can get on with that job.
As an aside it is regrettable that this dispute has led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle against me personally and an attempt to delete Broadcast Markup Language. I'm very sorry that the contributors to that page found their contributions under threat as part of this dispute. Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dialectric. Will this paragraph from the Hexus article by Nathan Ingraham help? Under the heading:
There we have the developers of the kit talking about their integration of the standard into that kit for the purposes they themselves describe. Is that enough? Devils In Skirts! ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)