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. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug)

IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Lack of relevant references. Searched for sources, could not find anything substantial which was not dependent on Wikipedia. Contested PROD. SJK ( talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Question - Where did you search for sources? This is a 1970s piece of technology so a lack of any online references does not indicate a lack of notability. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Lack of current sources is not cause for deletion when sources are expected to exist. The only issue here is that those sources are certainly going to be print-only, due to the subject at hand. This seems inherently notable to me, as a part of computing history. Sources needed, but I'm sure they exist. Alas, I'm not in a place where I can go hunt them out... I wonder if archive.org's library has some computing magazines from the day that might mention it? Fieari ( talk) 01:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  I looked extensively for online sources (Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library), and–putting aside Google Books snippet view, which I'll get to in a moment–I couldn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. I don't personally have access to any offline sources that might be relevant. But I should point out, the argument "don't delete this because offline sources to demonstrate notability could/might/probably exist" is really just a variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. To survive an AFD, it shouldn't be enough to merely argue that offline sources might exist, or even to argue that (in your opinion) they probably do – someone has to identify specific offline sources which demonstrate notability, and no one has been able to do that. Note this is distinct from WP:PAPERONLY/ WP:OSO–those are bad arguments when specific offline sources have been identified, but they don't apply when no one can individually identify relevant offline sources. (Finally, deletion isn't permanent – if someone identifies sufficient offline sources at some future date, the article can always be undeleted or recreated.)

  I did find a couple of Google Books snippet view resources, which I'll describe in a moment. The problem with snippet view, is you see so little of the text, it is very hard to judge whether the reference complies with WP:RS and WP:GNG or not. This is different from Google Books preview, where you can often see the entire page containing the search term hit, frequently adjacent pages, and often many other pages of the book as well, which makes it much easier to judge the reference's reliability and its individual contribution to notability.

  According to Google Books, Software World volume 6 (1976) page 20 mentions a "CICS DEVELOPMENT AID: Gemini UK have released a new product designed to help IBM CICS users. GEMINI OLIVER (On-Line Interactive Video Environment Resource) is an on-line testing aid and debugging package for all IBM System 360/370 DOS and OS users of CICS and CICSA/S. GEMINI OLIVER, is designed to allow application ..." ("CICSA/S" is probably an OCR error for "CICS/VS"). Probably this is the same package as described in this article, but it's hard to be 100% sure given the article never mentions a company called Gemini. However, I'd point out this is just a "snippet view" journal, so unless someone actually has a printed copy of this journal issue (or a scanned-in copy), I don't see how we can judge this reference against the WP:RS and WP:GNG criteria. (Software World doesn't appear to be a particularly notable journal.)

  Another reference found on Google Books is International Directory of Software, CUYB Publications, 1980, p. 268. But once again, it's only snippet view, and unless someone has a scanned-in or hardcopy of this publication, we don't have enough information to judge whether this source meets WP:RS and WP:GNG.

  If anyone here has access to these hardcopy publications, I think we should all be willing to accept their description of them in general, and of how they cover this particular product – but, we still need to evaluate that description against the relevant policies. But if no one in the discussion has seen those sources, we can't conclude that they are sufficient for this article to pass WP:GNG – we can't just assume, that because unseen sources A and B discuss this product, their discussion of it is substantial enough to meet GNG

  I don't deny WP:ITEXISTS – this was a real commerical software product sold in the 1970s, and likely more recently than that as well. But, unless we start arguing that any and all commercial software products sold in the 1970s or earlier are automatically notable – we don't have enough evidence at present to judge it as meeting WP:GNG. (Now, if someone was to propose – any commercial software product prior to date X is automatically notable – I would actually be inclined to support such a proposal, but that isn't Wikipedia's notability standards as they currently stand, and the purpose of WP:AFD is to implement the policies as they currently exist, not to introduce new ones.) SJK ( talk) 07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  I also don't think mention in either Software World, or the International Directory of Software, is a good indication of notability, because they are both (I understand) non-selective publications – they aimed to include all commercially available software. As such, they are like the software equivalent of the telephone directory. SJK ( talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK ( talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK ( talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• An additional comment–despite its title containing "IBM", I can find no evidence this was ever an IBM product – indeed, the article text seems to suggest it is the work of other companies. I suspect the article title is erroneous. The article title originally didn't have "IBM" in the name. There is an IP comment at Talk:IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) saying the article title is wrong. SJK ( talk) 07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Move to Draft instead as my searches have found nothing and this is best deleted until it can be noticeably improved, nothing convincing for its own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep or No consensus until we can find editors with access to offline sources to determine whether this is notable. Delete !votes based on empty internet search results should not be given weight here. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment which specific offline sources are you referring to? If you don't have specific offline sources in mind, this argument just seems to be a slight variant of WP:MUSTBESOURCES/ WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Since no one in this world can have a comprehensive selection of offline sources, by that standard everything from that time period must be notable, since you'd never be able to prove there aren't, somewhere out there, offline sources which demonstrate notability which no one has seen yet. It's essentially demanding to prove a negative (no one can ever prove that no offline sources exist, since no matter how many offline sources you check, there will always be more that you haven't) SJK ( talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I follow your reasoning but I find the potential implications unacceptable. Anything that is unsourceable on the internet would be subject to persuasive Delete arguments from editors who come up with empty searches. I agree that I haven't made a strong Keep argument but I think my No consensus argument is reasonable (though admittedly unconventional). ~ Kvng ( talk) 23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

If no one can present any sources for an article, then what is the harm in deleting it? If someone later identifies sufficient sources, the article can always be recreated. The article can be moved out of mainspace (into draftspace or userspace) – and then if someone one day finds sufficient offline sources to meet WP:GNG the article can be moved back to mainspace. SJK ( talk) 10:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I've heard arguments from others that anything unsourced should be removed from mainspace. I find the potential implications of that also unacceptable. There is no way sources are going to get added or any other improvements made if we delete or otherwise hide work in progress. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I looked as well, with much the same paucity of results as above. It's clear who the creator of the article is, from this and an already deleted autobiography. Unfortunately, xe has taken the wrong approach to documenting xyr achievements. Please get it independently documented outwith Wikipedia beforehand, M. Dakin. We insist that Wikipedia articles be verifiable from external reliable third-party published materials. This is not. Uncle G ( talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - What seems to be a complete and utter lack of attention to this program even in terms of 1970s and 1980s era publications accessed through Google Books, plus that it's not mentioned in any retrospective materials looking back at the development of the Customer Information Control System framework, makes me think that the notability of this is weak at best. The talk about the article being in 'the process of being built' or that new material 'is just about to be found' or whatever is disingenuous. I'm typing this days and days after the article was first nominated for deletion, and still it looks like while there's so much in the page being claimed about the program, there's still no sourcing. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:42, 26 May 2016 (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.