Garykline
From the discussion we've been having, it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community?
Some research turns out that the nominator was related to Hamilton C shell and his article was deleted by an administrator.
Having checked the website about Hamilton C shell, it seems that this shell is mostly a C shell that works in Windows only for $350, while the standard ch edition with its C compatible shell features is free for commercial use.
The Ch review article from Byte Magazine talks about Hamilton C shell and Ch.
Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter?
There are multiple, reliable, independent, and different sources as I noticed in the page you created. There are seven.
The argumentation in the discussion to deny some of them as reliable doesn't look quite right.
If the software review article written by a professor in a peer reviewed journal (IEEE) cannot be counted as a reliable source material and be treated as "just anyone with an opinion in print", what kind of reliable source are we looking for and from where? Notability doesn't equal popularity nor does it equal "expert-only" source. Otherwise, most newspaper and media references in Wikipedia will fall short of the notability standard since the authors are not domain experts. Who is authorized to issue expert certificate to the authors when judging them?
In addition, to declare another two articles written not on their own without proof is a baseless accusation. I don't know if there is an interaction for the author(s) when writing an article. But arguing the article cannot be used as a second source because there is an interaction is weak. don't you think such an article might contain more accurate information when knowing more about the software?
Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? Doesn't news reporter need to interact with the subject directly and get influenced when writing an article related to the subject for the media?
However, it is acceptable that we assume the articles are biased when they conflict with others. WK:NPOV requires that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective
...And that's about it from my end. thanks for your time.
gary kline
Garykline (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Accounts
editAre you the same person as User:Chuser ? SpinningSpark 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Garykline. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV closer has amended his close to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)