295:
changed the name of the video to Hooper
Selection after I told him about the article). In the few emails I've exchanged with Daniel he has come across as a very modest person and not at all out to promote himself. Any blame for the article's contents should rest with me. I'm also not opposed to it being deleted if people genuinely feel it's not appropriate for wikipedia.
198:
an apparent response to the positive feedback he received. The page was created in part to capitalise on this feedback and spread the idea. However this is not what
Knowledge articles are supposed to do - Knowledge articles are supposed to recognise established, notable events, ideas and things. "Hooper Selection" does not meet this criteria.
544:
and others); and independent reliable sources (the examples I have given are all third-party and are written by paid editorial staff). The oddity here is that the actual term appears to have been "created" on
Knowledge (resulting in circular references such as the MacWorld article referencing WP), as
661:
standards and a reasonable search doesn't find anything non-trivial. Only a couple of the sources even mention the phrase "Hooper selection", and the concept is certainly NOT YET the subject of coverage by multiple independent sources directly detailing. Might be one day... Page creator admits above
325:
I don't think Mglmpr is entirely correct in stating that the idea has yet to receive "serious implementation" given that it's now available in production applications. However he is right about the fact that it is not yet a maturely, widely deployed technology. I'm not certain what the threshold of
197:
Reason This is a page created for a marginally notable tech demo which is yet, if ever, to receive serious implementation in products and achieve recognisable status as a distinct, mature user interface technology. The page was created just days after Daniel Hooper demoed this technology online, in
294:
Just to set the record straight: I'm the original author of the article, and have just posted a comment to the talk page explaining my rationale for creating it, which you can read for details. Daniel neither created the article nor coined the term "Hooper
Selection" - these were both my doing (he
361:
Apology accepted :) Thanks for your understanding. I can accept deletion on the grounds of the technology not being sufficiently mature or widely deployed yet. I think the situation will be different by the end of this year, so perhaps at that time it might be suitable for inclusion.
452:
and not helpful in establishing notability. The Tech Crunch article isn't about either the subject or the subject's work; it's actually about somebody else's work that may have borrowed some of the ideas (but who knows if the author of the new product would even agree with that.)
531:
The Codea piece is written by a regular appadvice editor, and establishes third-party notice of the idea and name. The TechCrunch article is similar in that it establishes notability for the concept. Neither of these articles would establish sufficient notability for a
545:
opposed to outside. It may be that a move to "Swipe selection" or some other term will be in order once the idea is further incorporated into the marketplace and products; but until that time, the term "Hooper
Selection" looks like the name for the
345:
Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose you were just feeling enthusiastic - I should apologise for unfairly depicting Daniel as self-promoting. I still think the technology is not notable enough for a wiki article yet.
166:
467:
An interview by a journalist indicates that the topic was of sufficient notability for the journalist bother to do the interview. Even if Hooper selection is not the focus of the TechCrunch article, there is
160:
499:- Sufficient independent coverage (as above). The description and operation sections could use sourcing, but that lack is not sufficient for removal of the article. --
247:
662:
the term is invented by himself; page creator admits lack of independence from the concept creator. No objection to userfying for improvement and later assessment.
221:
121:
316:
which mentions, among other things, the origin of the wikipedia article. I also found articles describing two production implementations of the concept, in Codea
517:
It's true that we don't remove articles simply because sources have not yet been cited. But they have to exist. Which sources in particular are relying on?
126:
278:
After an enthusiastic reaction from tech press Hooper coined the title and created a
Knowledge page in an attempt to legitimate his project.
381:
It's possible this could become notable in the future but the sources don't appear to exist to support notability now. Knowledge is not a
94:
89:
98:
427:
322:(a jailbreak extension) (disclaimer: I happen to know one of the authors of Codea but have had no involvement its development myself)
317:
81:
326:
adoption of a technology is for it to meet the requirements of wikipedia; I'll leave it for more experienced wikipedians to judge.
313:
I was just searching for more recent material on this concept and found the following press release from
Georgia Tech University:
181:
17:
148:
234:
142:
690:
40:
57:
671:
641:
622:
597:
558:
526:
508:
485:
462:
439:
413:
394:
371:
355:
338:
306:
288:
261:
238:
207:
63:
138:
616:
85:
686:
273:
188:
36:
77:
69:
334:
302:
347:
199:
409:
351:
203:
174:
53:
541:
611:
367:
217:
320:
667:
554:
522:
504:
458:
449:
390:
382:
257:
230:
154:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
685:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
657:. "Knowledge is not a promotional medium." I'm seeing nothing linked on the page which meets
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
588:
572:
469:
284:
423:
314:
654:
481:
435:
405:
658:
650:
637:
537:
363:
329:
296:
448:
No, they don't. The
Georgia Tech article is basically an interview, which makes it
663:
550:
518:
500:
473:
454:
386:
253:
225:
115:
583:
280:
575:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
477:
431:
536:, but I am viewing the article from the perspective of a notable idea. For
632:
609:
Sources given are not sufficiently reliable to establish notability.
679:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
111:
107:
103:
173:
582:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
216:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
693:). No further edits should be made to this page.
540:, we need significant coverage (the above plus
222:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28
248:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
319:(an app on the app store) and SwipeSelection
187:
8:
246:Note: This debate has been included in the
630:for now. Interesting, but not yet notable.
245:
7:
24:
472:of it in the article. Also what
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
430:refs establish notability. --
404:Notability not demonstrated.
220:). I have transcluded it to
710:
672:01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
642:05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
64:01:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
682:Please do not modify it.
623:14:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
598:13:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
559:23:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
527:19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
509:19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
486:14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
463:19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
440:19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
414:06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
395:16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
372:12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
356:11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
339:08:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
307:07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
289:03:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
262:01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
239:01:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
208:00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
470:significant coverage
276:. From the article:
214:Automated comment:
48:The result was
600:
264:
251:
701:
684:
619:
614:
595:
586:
581:
577:
341:
309:
252:
228:
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
78:Hooper Selection
70:Hooper Selection
60:
34:
709:
708:
704:
703:
702:
700:
699:
698:
697:
691:deletion review
680:
617:
612:
589:
584:
570:
332:
300:
226:
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
707:
705:
696:
695:
675:
674:
644:
625:
603:
602:
601:
579:
578:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
512:
511:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
476:says below. --
443:
442:
417:
416:
398:
397:
375:
374:
343:
342:
337:comment added
327:
323:
305:comment added
299:30 May 2012.
292:
291:
274:WP:Advertising
266:
265:
242:
241:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
56:
54:The Bushranger
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
706:
694:
692:
688:
683:
677:
676:
673:
669:
665:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
643:
639:
635:
634:
629:
626:
624:
621:
620:
615:
608:
605:
604:
599:
596:
594:
593:
587:
580:
576:
574:
569:
568:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
539:
535:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
340:
336:
331:
328:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
311:
310:
308:
304:
298:
290:
286:
282:
279:
275:
271:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
249:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
229:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:One ping only
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
681:
678:
646:
631:
627:
610:
606:
591:
590:
571:
546:
533:
496:
474:User:Tgeairn
424:Georgia Tech
420:
401:
383:crystal ball
378:
344:
293:
277:
269:
213:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
49:
47:
31:
28:
649:as failing
428:Tech Crunch
333:—Preceding
301:—Preceding
161:free images
450:WP:PRIMARY
687:talk page
406:Maratrean
348:Mglmpr 24
254:• Gene93k
200:Mglmpr 24
37:talk page
689:or in a
613:Spinning
573:Relisted
542:MacWorld
364:Kellypmk
330:Kellypmk
297:Kellypmk
122:View log
39:or in a
664:BusterD
655:WP:SPIP
607:Delete.
551:Tgeairn
534:product
519:Msnicki
501:Tgeairn
455:Msnicki
387:Msnicki
379:Delete.
346:Thanks.
335:undated
303:undated
227:Snotbot
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
659:WP:IRS
651:WP:GNG
647:Delete
628:Delete
538:WP:GNG
402:Delete
281:Pburka
270:Delete
218:step 3
139:Google
99:delete
50:delete
638:talk
618:Spark
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
668:talk
653:and
555:talk
549:. --
547:idea
523:talk
505:talk
497:Keep
482:talk
478:Kvng
459:talk
436:talk
432:Kvng
426:and
421:Keep
410:talk
391:talk
368:talk
352:talk
285:talk
258:talk
204:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
633:DGG
585:Ged
385:.
237:»
224:.
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
670:)
640:)
592:UK
557:)
525:)
507:)
484:)
461:)
438:)
412:)
393:)
370:)
362:--
354:)
287:)
272:.
260:)
250:.
233:•
206:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
666:(
636:(
553:(
521:(
503:(
480:(
457:(
434:(
408:(
389:(
366:(
350:(
283:(
256:(
235:c
231:t
202:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.