User talk:Deepres/Vine Toolkit

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move at this time; please re-apply once the article is brought up to encyclopaedia standards.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Deepres/Vine Toolkit → Vine Toolkit — - [Page is mature enough to be moved from the user space to public] --Deepres (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)deepres

• Oppose the current article does not make any claims of notability and it does not have any reliable sources that discuss the platform. The only sources are primary sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on this article. Could you explain in the details on what basis you claim that Vine Toolkit article does not meet mentioned basic requirements. Especially in the context of your contributions ( not seeing any specific entries relating Grid / Java aspects so it could be hard to assess the notability properly ? ). Regarding the sources issue, could you please refer to the Microsoft Vine article which was my reference here. I think that the Gridipedia source meets the assumed requirements (secondary sources. ). Thanks for your help. Deepres (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)deepres

The first two issues you raise have nothing to do with the notability of this article. Whether I edit or not similar articles does not effect my ability to evaluate notability and the existance of other articles has no bearing on this article. As far as this article, I think my original assessment of the sources is wrong. The Gridipedia reference does appear to be a secondary source. I don't reckognize the source so I can not evaluate whether it is a reliable source or not.

After all of that I still do not believe this is ready to be moved to the main space. The notablility guidelines talk about significant coverage in reliable sources (plural). We have one secondary source that I do not know if it is reliable, so I do not believe notability has been established. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has been refined according to your comments ( mainly by adding section about Vine architecture based on the secondary sources ).Deepres (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)deepres

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

User:Deepres/Vine Toolkit → Vine Toolkit — - [Missing information requested by the editor has been added.] --Deepres (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)deepres

You are free to move this to the mainspace yourself, although I can't guarantee it won't be deleted. I am not sure this passes our notability guidelines as currently constructed. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, unfortunately I cannot perform the move operation because of the status of my account. Should I simply recreate this page in the mainspace ? Deepres (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)deepres