Talk:Registrar (software)

Give me a break I only created it yesterday and most of it is from our memories of things that happened 25 years ago. How can be be an advert you cant buy it anymore. Dont you want Wiki to be the font of all knowledge? It is the history of a significant piece of software. Instead of just posting stuff how about editing it into Wiki wys like you suggest. Deben Dave (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you a break by tagging the problems instead of directly starting up a deletion debate on it, which was my first impulse upon seeing the article.

As for the advert tag, the tag wording is "written like an advert", not "is an advert". It's a matter of tone and style more than purpose. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really can’t understand your objection to this article. All I am trying to do is to tell the world about a significant piece of software and what it did. If my writing skills are not up to the wiki standards then why don’t you help me? Deben Dave (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the tags until each issue mentioned in them is fixed. The article does not, IMHO meet the project's notability requirements for inclusion, as detailed at WP:NOTE. I am giving it a chance by tagging it instead of starting a deletion debate. But if the tags continue to be removed, a deletion debate will be the next step. The tags will let other people know that various improvements are needed and, over time, those improvements will be made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the man who actually designed the software in the first place as detailed in the Acknowledgements. You cannot get a better source than that can you? IMHO it is not written like an advert and is similar to lots of other wiki pages. Can we get another independent opinion? Deben Dave (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O is a good place to go to get additional opinions. Feel free to post there to bring in additional eyes.

As for the sourcing, one of the tags is about "Primary Sources". Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced as much as possible from "Secondary Sources". These are sources independent of the article's subject. The software's author is considered a primary source, and thus is supposed to be used minimally.

And especially in the case of notability, primary sources do not in any way establish notability. And if this article does go to a deletion discussion, it is on notability that it to be the issue on which it's deletion/survival revolves. Notability requires multiple references that are reliable, independent, and non-trivial. Anything from the software's author fails the "independent" part of that.

If you look at the tags I added, advert at this stage is not the one you really should be focused on. That one is not likely to get the article deleted. Notability, and the lack of independent sources is the biggest problem. Categories will likely bring someone to fix it in a matter of days, as that tag has the best response time for fixes. Orphan, Clean-up, Wikify, and even the advert tag are all cosmetic problems. While these need to be fixed, they are not the ones that should IMHO be of the most immediate concern. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don’t know any published source about Registrar apart from the user manuals and that is why I am putting it on WIKI. There were thousands of users who I am sure could verify what I am saying and hopefully they will see this. Can you suggest any other way on confirming notability? Deben Dave (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the notability page. Anything useful will be there, and will be more official than any kind of summarizing I could do. Using user manuals makes Wikipedia a secondary source. Using information you have collected directly from the programmer makes Wikipedia a primary source, which is a direct violation of the site policy against original research.

Verifiability is another policy at issue here. It, along with Original Research, are two of the three core policies of the project. Verifiability is the principle that any user reading the article should be able, from links given in the article, to verify the article's contents. It's part of why we cannot be the primary source for information. Users must be able to see exactly where Wikipedia got the information and to go verify that information themselves.

If you cannot find usable secondary sources, especially ones to verify that the software meets the project's notability requirements, then the page will almost certainly be deleted when it is brought up for a deletion debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am trying really hard how am I doing? If you decide to delete the article let me know and then I will delete it myself but I hope it does not come to that. This program changed the lives of thousands of people and I think needs to be recorded. Deben Dave (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm personally pretty sure this is historically notable. Despite the original editor's claim of there being no sources but manual, there seem to be quite a few references online which can be found using Google. This book on Google Books for example verifies the number of installations and that it was one of the leading products of its type for the time. Yworo (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, whether Wikipedia needs this much detail on an obsolete software product and whether the available sources support such a long article is another matter entirely. Yworo (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]