Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDraw

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheDraw

I am having to force myself to do this. I used to spend hours with this program back when I was a kid, and there really is no information anywhere... but it isn't really notable, and I can't find a single reliable source. Feel free to attempt to rescue it, or possibly transwiki. I just can't justify keeping it in its current state. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merger of parts of this into ANSI art might be appropriate. I used to use this all the time myself, since I was the sysop of a local BBS from 1984 to 1999. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the signature ANSI editor used on PCs for the better part of a decade. Everyone who ever ran or called a BBS had it. It should fulfill the notability requirement...we just have to find the sources, which may not be easy to do via google considering that TheDraw comes from the pre-internet era. Wiz [CiA] aka Amazinglarry (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not about userbases, or popularity, or fame, or size. It is about coverage in published works from which an encyclopaedia article can be written. And callers to BBSes didn't need to create screens. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a link to an interview with the creator of the software. I will also point out that Wikipedia has articles on numerous software titles from this era, some of which were less widespread than TheDraw, for example Telix, Zmodem, Renegade (BBS), PKZIP, ACiDDraw. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Every subject stands or falls on its own merits, according to whether it is covered by sources or not. PKZIP is covered in many books, some of which, such as ISBN 9781557552037, are entirely devoted to its particular class of software utility program. Telix, too, is documented in books. You need to show that this program has been the subject of multiple in-depth coverage in independent reliable published works. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ANSI art, perhaps into a history or tools section. It deserves a mention, even a section in ANSI art, having been one of the earliest and most influential ANSI art editors; but we don't have enough verifiable information to extend it to full article length. Note: I am not the creator of this article; I initially created it as a redirect because I was too lazy to write an article. You can thank User:Cumbrowski for creating it, and I hope he will comment. Dcoetzee 09:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep. Additional sources discussed here show that this topic can stand on its own. Dcoetzee 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - TheDraw is probably the single most important tool used by the DOS PC ANSI art/ASCII art Artscene of all time. Disclaimer. I am using TheDraw myself to this day, since I first found out about it in 1992 (being a user for 16 years might be considerable as WP:COI :)). The tool got mentioned several times in interviews for the documentary "BBS: The Documentary" by Jason Scott Sadofsky, which can be found at the internet archive here. I am not sure, if or how many of the mentions of the tool made it on the final DVD, but I will find out and add it to the references in the article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A subjective estimate of importance has no foundation in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, neither does what tools we happen to use (otherwise all of the tools at User:Uncle G's 'bot would warrant articles). The right thing — the only thing — is to show the existence of sources. You wrote this. What was your source? How can readers check what you wrote for correctness? They won't just take your word for it. You're just someone on a WWW site with a pseudonym. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure we could find numerous references in Boardwatch magazine, but I can't find a way to search the contents of Boardwatch on the internet. Anyone able to help? This seems like a classic example of an obviously notable subject, but the references are not readily available on the internet, which has led to this AFD nomination. Amazinglarry (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More or less the most prominent editor of its kind ever created, I think that speaks for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. Notability is neither fame nor importance. We rejected that as a principle long ago. What counts is whether a subject has been documented, in multiple in-depth published works from reliable sources independent of its creator(s), by the world at large. If the world hasn't seen fit to document this subject, then no matter how "prominent", "important", "unique", and so forth we personally and subjectively think it to be we don't get to mis-use Wikipedia to rectify the fact that the world hasn't documented something that we like. Being confident that Boardwatch will have documented this is not the same as pointing to where it actually has, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, I think we all understand notability and the need to provide sources, the problem is that the sources are hard to find quickly by google searching or whatever. Anyone who knows anything about BBS culture knows how ubiquitous this software was and that's why everyone here is arguing for its notability. I went ahead and found another source (an actual book!) and added it to the article. Hopefully this will be enough to keep the article alive while someone figures out where Boardwatch can be searched. Amazinglarry (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (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.