 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Deletion
edit(NH) FastCode is an integral and important part of the Embarcadero Delphi Product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarcadero_Delphi). Why is this article being considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHodges (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be included in the encyclopedia, topics have to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I searched in the ususal places I would find such coverage - google books, scholar and news - but couldn't find anything to show it deserves a stand alone article. It could possibly be merged into the Delphi article, but that should be discussed at the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FastCode SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is no longer true. There are now at least two inbound links, and three references that vouch for the notability of the organization. Nick Hodges —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
- There are? Are they in the article? The problem is not inbound links, it is sources. There's the www.stevetrefethen.com article, but that little aside there about FastCode really does not in any way count as "significant coverage in reliable sources". Please see the general notability guidelines. And the deletion discussion. And the guidelines about conflict of interest. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- A note about independent sources - the blogs.embarcadero.com references don't establish notability, because they are not written by sources unaffiliated with the subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2)Those are not suitable, three are self-published and the other is not independent. (Again, please discuss this at the deletion discussion rather than here though) SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I add a bibliography section with references to two print magazine articles? The articles are not available online, but they are mentioned in the table of contents for those issues. Blwhite (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally make them inline sources, so people know which of the claims in the wikipedia article these print magazine articles are supporting. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Marked for deletion box
editThe "marked for deletion" box is designed badly as it contains no direct link to the discussion about why it's being considered for deletion. All links originating from that box require further manual search for the page listing the reasons. Why not make it technically possible to directly link from the box to the discussion? That would save the user's time a lot.--62.224.190.65 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the link you desire is there. It may be a little bit obscure for those not familiar with it and maybe something can be done to improve it; but, it is linked by the "this article's entry" text. It is even in bold as I have done here. WTucker (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Links
editWhat do recommend for links like this? Thanks. http://books.google.dk/books?id=WCrzCSuNfHoC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=fastmm+delphi&source=bl&ots=nmf3lvxc0G&sig=mBWWTH_XN7QJIRmC2ChTlUuw3I8&hl=da&ei=yH85TfGmFcKRswaKqrDzBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBji2Ag#v=onepage&q&f=false Blwhite (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)