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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete. Sandstein10:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Home API (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)

FailsWP:GNG. No referencesImcdc (talk)14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in thelist of Computing-related deletion discussions.Imcdc (talk)14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in thelist of Software-related deletion discussions.Imcdc (talk)14:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it certainly cannot be too "universal" since searches turn up so few results. Some other observations: there was another unreferenced stub atUHAPI Forum which was merged into this one a year and a half ago. Both are very dated. The claims about "currently" were written in 2005, and never updated for 16 years. It was created bySpecial:Contributions/Mac who was banned in 2008. Another userSpecial:Contributions/Debot~enwiki added content to this and a few related articles, then only one edit since then. Only cited source is one paragraph in a book, which cites a web site uhapi.org which seemed to stop updating around 2006 then went defunct in 2008.

A little more digging finds a few mentions, but all around 2005. My guess is that it got subsumed or replaced byCE Linux Forum, which also needs help (I did some of that today). Maybe one or two sentences in that article for historical purposes, not sure it needs a redirect, so still leaning to delete both this and the Forum, or replace with redirect to CELF would be fine.W Nowicki (talk)17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regardless of whether the article should be kept or not there is no evidence the nominator has performed a properWP:BEFORE and searched for references per theWP:NEXIST guideline; this is disruptive. The good faith analysis byW Nowicki seems reasonable; however if the article is what it says on the tin it may have been reasonable attempt at a standard; notable at the time and therefore always notable. There's been a lot of linkrot since 2005.Djm-leighpark (talk)08:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who exactly is being accused of disruptive editing? Granted thatUser:Imcdc went on somewhat of a cleaning spree last Friday, nominating many articles for deletion faster than we can research them. My policy is to try to save three or four articles at least before starting the delete process, but in all the cases so far, it looks like consensus processes were followed. At least starting the discussions does not seem disruptive when these old neglected articles are attempted to be cleaned up. Most might fail to reach consensus, but at least the intent seems sound. There are thousands of "standards" attempts, many of which have grandiose names like this "universal" one. Only standards that exist long enough to have either publications written about them, or be implemented in actual products have a chance to be notable in my opinion.W Nowicki (talk)17:54, 11 October 2021 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.