Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Spectrum

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Per the commenters, the initially provided sources appear to be passing mentions and not WP:SIGCOV. After the delete closure, I will editorially take up Czar's suggestion to recreate the title as a redirect to ZX Spectrum#Copying and backup. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World of Spectrum

World of Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of sources, but most of them are primary or trivial; or, indeed, concentrate on the fact the website was a copyright violation. Practically none of them are serious, reliable, in-depth third-party coverage. I await the SPA/IP barrage. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. If you can allow people to vandalise it and try to destroy a 20yr relationship with copyright holders without stepping in then it's best of deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Have you done even the vaguest WP:BEFORE work? BBC News, Metro, Wired on the first page of search results alone; World of Spectrum is one of the most significant websites in the retro-gaming community. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, but everything I found was either not a reliable source or was about the copyright issue, which is sort of a BLP1E version for a website. Your three links; all three mention "World of Spectrum" once in passing. No way that's in-depth coverage; need to do better than that, I'm afraid. Just typing "World of Spectrum" into Google and saying "hey look, results" doesn't work. There may well be good sources out there, but I haven't found them, and nor have you. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iridescent:, how would the sources you looked up make World of Spectrum pass WP:GNG? The BBC says "He has sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base", Metro points to the site for free games, "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway, as we’ve been advised that it’s perfectly legal to download and play (by putting them on a SD card and slotting it into the Vega) any of the games from World of Spectrum", and so does Wired: "The 1,000 included games seems generous, but most of these are actually free to download legally from World of Spectrum, and the list is also missing a lot of the titles fans would consider 'key' to the system's history". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because a source is primary does not make it inadmissible, or in some way count negatively. Equally although the BBC ref mentioned does only mention WoS once, it's hardly "in passing" - Heck "sourced the files for the game from the same retro site where he found the circuit designs, World of Spectrum, a magnet for the computer's international fan base." - the same is true of the other two links - neither are in passing.
  • No, both are in passing, because they're not actually about WoS. We need reliable sources that are in-depth, i.e. are about the website. I'm sure there's a chance they exist, but someone needs to find them. Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would turn that on its head and say that notability is ascertained by the fact then that even though an article is not about WoS, the topic was felt important enough to be mentioned and have relevance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic every website mentioned in a BBC article should have it's own wikipedia page? In twenty years the site does not seem to have done anything remotely notable which has led to any coverage by reliable third-parties (and by that I mean outside the niche of retro-computer fans). Virtually all the citations on the page originate from the site itself; the exceptions being the site's only 'claim to fame' - mistakenly being sent a cease-and-desist letter from IDSA - not even BLP1E but accidental BLP1E!. MrMajors (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere do I suggest such a thing, because that is silly - and shame on you for using such a claim. What I suggest is that even though the article in question is primarily about topic "X", it was felt that topic "Y" (in this case WoS) was worthy of mention because it was inherently relevant to topic "X". Of course that does not then imply that I think every topic "A", "B" & "C" is deserving of an article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not "inherently relevant" though, Ben Heck could have sourced the circuit designs and files from many websites - he happened to get them from World of Spectrum, and the article happened to mention that. It does not make World of Spectrum in any way more notable. MrMajors (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The fact that he "happened" to get them from WoS rather than any other website is relevant. Can you suggest what other websites he may have got them from? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright section is important because there was a concerted effort to stay within the law, perhaps not well enough enforced (OR) but nevertheless RARE titles were not available for example and a list of permissions was available. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as a note to Lee Fogarty - it ain't your website. WP:OWN is applicable here.

I can't see anything on that page that is relevant here - the site is hosted by my, all of the scripts, databases and files were handed to me, Martijn isn't coming back. I can register wikipedia.me.uk - does that make the owner of wikipedia? The domain points to MY server - paid for by me. What more do you need to see that I am the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm talking about the wikipedia page, not actual WoS itself. You stated above "I'd rather my website was deleted tbh. " - WoS may be yours, but Wikipedia and the WoS entry are not. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also - saying permissions pages "were" available is wrong - the link has always worked - http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/#sofar the only thing we did - when Martijn was still owner - was to remove the actual emails because copyright holders were being spammed or abused, so we took out the details.

  • Yes, that's a fair point and one I agree on - the use of past tense was probably not the best, but it was based on the fact that I was looking backwards over the history of Wos. I agree that the permissions are still available - and important. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not true, the emails from the copyright holders were available until the site was mirrored in 2014 - they are not accessible now ("Cannot open: No such file or directory"). This is not relevant to the discussion on this page though. MrMajors (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is with stating the site is commercial - it never has been and never will be. The preservation team are a separate entity and had a shop to cover the costs of sourcing the material. This isn't a part of WoS. By stating the site is commercial is damaging to the standing we have with copyright holders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogartylee (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The World of Spectrum is the foremost ZX Spectrum resource, it's the first named when asking about where to find information about Spectrum games. Considering the fresh interest in Spectrum retro-gaming (Spectrum Vega, Vega+, Spectrum Next and the Recreated Spectrum) people will be looking for resource sites, and the World of Spectrum is that site. These projects are driven by people who participated in the ZX Spectrum market of the 1980s (Sir Clive Sinclair, Rick Dickinson and Richard Wilcox) So it would be counter-productive for readers for this article to be deleted. Isofarro (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about the site's utility as a resource, or your opinion. See Wikipedia:Notability: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. MrMajors (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a 'self-published' book on lulu.com - verifiability guidelines state books should be from "respected publishing houses". MrMajors (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is irrelevent to the notability of the site. MrMajors (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Without coverage from independent reputable sources the site fails the requirements of notability. My familiarity of the site is because of my long interest in ZX Spectrum retro-gaming and being a regular visitor to the site since 1998. I am surprised by the lack of public notability signals, but that's more likely to be an indication of how insular we the ZX Spectrum community are. Seeing the current site owner last night serve up 403 Access Forbidden to visitors from Wikipedia is an abrogation of good faith, and denigrates Wikipedia's preferred policy of a Neutral Point of View on editing articles. Wikipedia is qualitatively better off without this article, and not a victim for the destructive whims of the site owner. Isofarro (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a website dedicated to a particular console, it should've appeared in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. It only does so in passing. Not notable by itself. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spectrum is a 1980s computer, not a games console; why should a custom search which is only looking at the present-day gaming press be relevant? Even massive software distribution platforms like the Mac App Store or F-Droid struggle to demonstrate reliability if you restrict it to what that custom search brings up. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the notability? Lemon64 has no page, LemonAmiga has no page, CPCWiki has no page. What has World of Spectrum done that makes it worthy of an entry here? MrMajors (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF covers this very argument: "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"" Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources you provided yourself are about the ZX Spectrum as video game platform. "The 1,000 included games seems generous" and "You do get those 1,000 games but these are essentially free anyway", so why would those sources be okay to keep the article, but not to delete it? But we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, it's about World of Spectrum. The sources listed at WP:VG/RS (and the custom Google search engine) are not "present-day gaming press"; not just present, and certainly not exclusively video game journalism (including general technology and computing websites like Wired, Ars Technica and CNET). When you look up "zx spectrum", you get plenty of results that discuss the computer. If World of Spectrum would be of note, it would get more hits. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you enclose the words "World of Spectrum" in quotes, there are a lot of hits. They may mostly be "in passing", but that is to expected about a web site about a 1982 computer that was for the most part, only available in Europe (with most being sold in the UK). If a Wikipedia page about "World of Spectrum" is not considered important, why has there been an entry on Wikipedia since 31 December 2006‎? The Wikipedia entry about the computer itself, the ZX Spectrum makes reference to the World of Spectrum web site [1]. Further if you search Wikipedia for "World of Spectrum" there are many thousands of hits. It would be rather strange to to have all these references to "World of Spectrum" but not have an entry telling readers what "World of Spectrum" is. I'm sure there are other more suitable source references, but a quick search on a search engine will be swamped by other results and finding references in traditional paper based written media is rather harder as in areas like this most modern communication is on the internet, but not necessarily indexed by search engines. As to Lemon64 and the rest, the relevant question is why do they not have a Wikipedia entry. Maybe they should have entries. There is an entry about Blake's 7, a TV show that was made between 1978 and 1981 for broadcast on the BBC UK TV service. So why should Lemon64 be missing? 1024MAK (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ World of Spectrum
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on the deletion process. WP: LONGTIME and WP: OTHERSTUFF are both not arguments. The fact that they're only in passing is the whole point, the website needs to be notable by itself, not because it writes about a notable subject. And again, we're not discussing the ZX Spectrum, but World of Spectrum. There is no reason why a source used on Wikipedia would need its own article either. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are thousands of hits for World of Spectrum on wikipedia because a few people made thousands of edits to add the 'wos template' for video games. This template was also reviewed for deletion which it narrowly avoided. Just because one or two World of Spectrum supporters have been very busy here does not make the site notable.
If you are "sure there are other more suitable source references" then this is your opportunity to present them. MrMajors (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sadly spot on.... "The community that built the largest encyclopedia in history is shrinking," ...we (or the deletionist authors who are left) seem to be now more focused on "consolidating" the vision of a pure encyclopedia by enforcing arbitrary policies (like this infamous "significant coverage" policy) instead of the creation valuable content or motivating new authors by better structures. In this process we carelessly repel the last positively motivated authors and all newbies. In the last AfD I was involved a whole community was repelled, without need, it was scary. :/ Shaddim (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaddim:, frankly I expected more from a more experienced user like yourself, but I have to remind you as well to stick to the actual discussion! This page is for discussing World of Spectrum only, not to lament Wikipedia's changing nature. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the actual discussion, @1024MAK:. While you're saying you need more time, you do seem to have time enough to "research Wikipedia". With an article like that, you're just wasting your own and our time. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"*"delete. The lies you are allowing to be published regarding the commercial status are damaging to the reputation of WoS and the agreements we have spent 20yrs getting from copyright holders.Fogartylee (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing the content of the article, @Fogartylee:, but the article itself. Any inaccuracies can be addressed, assuming what you're saying is true. You can also edit the article in the meantime. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Except I can't because I am the site owner... And when I did try to amend it, the vandal puts it back and complains.

Fogartylee, I think you're getting confused between 'lies' and 'facts you don't agree with'. You do not own the site according to ICANN. The commercial connections have clearly been identified and cited on the article, even van der Heide referred to the shop as "our own team's". As for your agreements with copyright holders, where are they? Have you deleted them because they were all addressed to "Martijn van der Heide" and you don't actually have any permission to distribute anything? MrMajors (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point, I have to admit. If a developer gives permission for distribution to WoS - is he giving permission to the site, or to the owner of the site? And what happens if the site changes ownership? It's not unreasonable to assume that emails were addressed to Martijn as a person rather than to WoS as an entity, but does that mean permission was only granted to Martijn to distribute via WoS? I bet lawyers love this stuff. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: Firstly, the site wasn't mirrored. It changed ownership. If I turn the site off, it no longer exists. Secondly, Martijn and I had a discussion years ago regarding the emails, and we decided they had to be taken down because we were getting complaints from copyright holders of abuse and spam - most noticeably with companies or individuals that had denied access then receiving emails demanding they change their mind. Given the trouble Majors has been causing, you can see why I wouldn't want him having access to the list! Regarding the permissions - they are all for World of Spectrum and not to Martijn - in the majority of cases, the emails are addressed to others - and one person in particular, because he did the work in contacting these people. As for the links to the shop - the preservation team have provided the majority of the titles to WoS, but they aren't WoS. Wikipedia has many links to shops but I doubt they get any money from them. Majors knows full well that WoS isn't commercial and doesn't even take donations.Fogartylee (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest that if Fogartylee cannot produce any documentation to support claims that World of Spectrum currently has permission to distribute titles, with or without the email addresses obscured, then we also need to propose that the Template:WoS_game is also deleted (again: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17). There are potentially hundreds of copyright violations being linked to from wikipedia. MrMajors (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I'm not wasting time editing thousands of emails to please a pedant on here. Delete them if you wishFogartylee (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While yes the site was mentioned in the links given earlier by Iridescent, these were passing mentions and not a sign of notability, as in [[WP:GNG} "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The mentions in the sources earlier appear to be trivial. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to ZX_Spectrum#Copying_and_backup. Getting some outside traction on Twitter related to Fogarty stepping down, so this discussion is becoming a proxy. I see a few things confused here: (1) the Wikipedia article on WoS, (2) the current management of WoS, and (3) the legacy of WoS. We're here for the former and not the latter. Wikipedia is interested in, simply, whether enough coverage exists in multiple reliable, independent sources such to write an article on the subject without entirely relying on primary/self-published materials. It is clear from the above that we are currently lacking in sources on WoS—articles about the website/database/community, etc., anything more than passing mentions, really. In that case, we don't have enough to write an article. WoS is mentioned in those passing mentions as important to the Spectrum fan community, so the title would be a useful redirect to its mention in the section on ZX Spectrum, which could really use its own section on Spectrum fandom, if you can find sources. For editors in this conversation new to Wikipedia, welcome, but please stay on topic—this discussion is about whether sources exist to write an article on World of Spectrum. Please take other conversations elsewhere. czar 19:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found coverage in Handbook of Digital Games, published by John Wiley & Sons. There's also this magazine archived at archive.org, but it's in Spanish, and I can't figure out what it's talking about. However, if you search for "world of spectrum", there are several hits in this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MrMajors was banned from the wos forums for joining and not posting - not in itself a banning offence. He was however taking selected screenshots to send to others to cause trouble. He is on twitter and has made 14 posts in total - all attacking me or WoS. https://twitter.com/majorrobbb His contribution to wikipedia has been 1 game, and all of the rest have been to vandalise the WoS page. Finally, he has claimed to not know who Martijn is - anyone that knows anything about WoS knows Martijn, and if as he claims, he doesn't then he has no knowledge of the subject he is editing. We have his IP address from the forums, and it matches a known troublemaker Fogartylee (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to have grasped the point of this discussion. MrMajors (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the wikipedia links to WoS work anyway... Fogartylee (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE; unlike Jet Set Willy of course which represented the peak of our civilization... Muffled Pocketed 07:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties. What has the site 'influenced'? The sources given by User:NinjaRobotPirate are weak as one is in Spanish: as NinjaRobotPirate says "I can't figure out what it's talking about". The Handbook of Digital Gaming uses the words "self-proclaimed" and "self-identified" when describing the site and the only sources cited by the book are an interview with site owner Martijn van der Heide in 2012 and a pdf about the tzx format from the site itself. MrMajors (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "*Being referenced is not "significant coverage" by reliable third-parties." Because you say so? It is exactly that, being referenced is coverage. ("significant" is always highly subjective and not properly defined in our polices) "are weak as one is in Spanish" Not at all! A different language weakens not at all the quality of an ref, vice versa it show the reach far beyond the English speaking world. Wikipedia should represent the situation world wide not only in the English language one. "he site and the only sources cited by the book" it doesn't matter what the book cites, this is a secondary source which discusses in detail the topic. Shaddim (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a translation of the Spanish text then! If nobody can understand the language of the source it's not obviously not useful to this discussion. MrMajors (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a totaly different request than the unfounded blame "weak source". Shaddim (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. NinjaRobotPirate cited a source to support the notabilty of the site purely because it contains the text "world of spectrum" while claiming they "can't figure out what it's talking about". The source, as presented by NinjaRobotPirate, is weak. MrMajors (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the source is maybe not translated or evaluated, but not per se "weak". You used weak in conjunction with spanish, which was a improper argumentationm as spanish sources are not weaker (or stronger) than english one.Shaddim (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have said "The sources given by NinjaRobotPirate are not helpful" then. The source is self-published, and does not actually mention world of spectrum other than once in passing and once as a url so it can't be claimed as "significant coverage" or a "reliable source" anyway. MrMajors (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's still nothing convincing regarding substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but weak. My impression is that there is enough secondary out there, but with uncertain quality, to keep the article. The problem is that the current article relies too heavily on COI/primary sources. If not kept then salvage by merge key elements into ZX Spectrum. Aoziwe (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_of_Spectrum&oldid=1089517038"