Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/BoastMachine

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BoastMachine

The BoastMachine article was apparently created by its sole programmer. Only edits are to this article and to add a link to it from PHP. When assessing notability please keep in mind that software can easily get very many Google hits without being notable, especially if its creator is so keen on free advertising. Delete. — Rory ☺ 00:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• I'm the programmer* Hello people, it seems I am a bit late here. I agree that I created the boastMachine wiki page (about a year ago). But honestly I had never read the Wikipedia Terms. My bad. But the article was touched up by many a users. All I did was "create" the page. I never created the page with the intention of getting traffic or hits. I know boastMachine is doing ok. If you people dont like the page, please get it deleted. I have no objection. Thank you all.. - Kailash Nadh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.189.243 (talk • contribs).

• Dont think so - I myself am a boastmachine user and i know the author personally. I dont think its an advertisement for boastMachine powers over 40K blogs. And its listed on OpensourceCms.com , and for an example, Michigan state university uses boastmachine. So there must be some value in it definetly?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.225.138.34 (talk • contribs).
• Keep and improve - certainly needs cleanup (de-POV, better prose), but 5400 Google hits seems to say that there is at least some notability. This was VfD'd within the first few hours of existence, and we should see if it can turn into something informative. -- Netoholic @ 01:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't list so soon except that it's clearly an ad written by its developer. Like I said, it's trivially easy to get thousands of hits for software. Most of those hits will be directories or user-submitted data. —Rory ☺ 01:35, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not remove what you consider to be advertising, and add factual information. Try contacting the author and encourage them to make the improvements. -- Netoholic @ 01:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. I don't care what the content of the article is currently, or how quickly it was listed on VfD, or what might be added to it or improved - Votes For Deletion is about the topic, not the content, and some kid's free software project is not encyclopedic, no matter what you write in the article. —Stormie 01:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Stormie Improv 16:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I saw this earlier on New Page patrol and considered it very carefully. It is advertising and, as it were, programmer vanity. For those reasons, delete. If the program (which is the solution to all your needs!) gets notable, we will need an article on it, but now it's just one contender among thousands. Geogre 04:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WikiSpam for non-notable blogging software. — Gwalla | Talk 04:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacrimosus 05:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Opinion. A quick Google search [1] suggests that this PHP plug is used by 39 other sites. Regarding the codes, there are some non-standard codings and I hope the author will improve it. As the author is young (16), he may not be aware of some Wikipedia policies. *But*, if Wikipedia can room WordPress, I don't think this article should be deleted. --Rrjanbiah 08:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Reads like a programmers diary, and isn't NPOV. There's about four lines that should be kept if this is a program of note. I don't see any of the 39 other sites being that important - the websites don't appear that notable, the number isn't very large, and web-related software is by nature going to be more visible in a web search. I'd need more convincing that the program is important, delete if no further evidence of note can be provided. Average Earthman 09:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I have rephrased it now. Do you still dispute POV? --Rrjanbiah 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 12:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. FWIW, WordPress gets nearly 2 million hits. "This was VfD'd within the first few hours of existence..." well, duh, most VfD listings come from Recent Changes or New Pages patrol, so that's normal. If it suddenly becomes notable tomorrow, I'm sure we'll hear about it then. Niteowlneils 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • VfD listings should not come from Newpages. Its unfair, as many good articles today had really bad first versions. Every article needs a start, and if a newbie comes and adds a page (badly written as it is), we should try to fix it. Otherwise, it will and does discourage new editors. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Should I use the "Random Page" button instead? Terrapin 14:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I found this, as I find most articles, via Special:Randompage. I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference how old it is, how well written it is, how POV it is or anything else. As long as the software isn't notable (and it isn't) it shouldn't be here. —Rory ☺ 16:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I actually get flack for being on the conservative side of giving needy articles a chance: If it's a valid topic, even a single sentence, as long as it is a complete, coherent sentence that states the subject and why it's notable, to me it should be kept--cleanup or attention, at most. However, others disagree, and some such articles get speedy deleted every day. That said, invalid topics will always be invalid topics. Also:
      1. When I'm doing "newpages" patrol, since I load 500 at a time and start at the bottom, they're already a day or two old, and by the time I reach the top of the list they're 4 or 5 days old
      2. The vast majority of speedy delete candidates are brand new articles, let alone VfD. If a user finds the Clayton Moore red-link, clicks Edit this page, clicks 'bold text' on the edit tool bar and clicks Save, you're saying we should wait a week or two to see if they 'expand their contribution'?!?
      3. And if we don't catch it from the newpages or Recent Changes list, what are the odds of someone finding it down the road? Niteowlneils 20:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • VfD listings should come from Newpages. It doesn't matter whether the article is "really bad" or Pulitzer Prize material—VfD discussions should be based on the enecyclopedia-worthiness of the topic, not the quality of the article. —Stormie 01:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Andris 13:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• In my opinion 39 sites using boastMachine in less than a year is fairly well for a project run by an individual teenager. Besides the article isn't an advert anymore. Keep. --ZeroOne 15:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, that is pretty good for an individual teenager. So is scoring 1450 in the SATs at 13 or getting a masters degree at 21. Do my friends and I get our own articles? To give some perspective, I personally know several people who have written complete content managers for blogs. —Rory ☺ 16:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hell, my school within a school, and the early college entrance program my boyfriend is in are both filled with people who have gotten above average SAT scores, "genius level" IQ scores and Bachelors/Masters degrees before the age of 20. Doesn't make them notable (: Applegoddess 01:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Claims that deleting such articles will discourage newbies from submitting such articles is quite correct. Wikipedia policy is that people should not write about themselves. We surely want to discourage newbies and oldbies from writing material that dosn't fit Wikipedia policies. And "fixing up" advertising so that it doesn't look so much like advertising is adding deceit to hype (unless the fixer up independently knows the subject of the article). Jallan 18:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, I'm 15, I coded my own CMS for a group programming project. Does that mean that I think it deserves a Wikipedia article? Nope. Anyone can do it with a few lines of code. Only when it reaches the same popularity as WordPress or MT would an article be justified. Applegoddess 01:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • btw, the app has over 10,000 lines of code —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.182.82 (talk • contribs).
• Delete/move offsite - and the sooner the better - this application is not notable or of particularly high quality. It belongs in a directory of extant weblog software and not the Wikipedia. Ronsard 9:00, 6 November 2005

• Although there appears a clear consensus to delete, the listing is so old and was never closed, although the page in question has deleted edits there is no information in the deletion logs on when it was deleted or why. I would also note that the current page's creator and most significant contributor is also the author of the software in question, although the software in question does get 258 000 hits on google. Please keep in mind that software can easily get very many Google hits without being notable, especially if its creator is so keen on free advertising. At this point I abstain. Steve block talk 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Atricle violates WP:Vanity and does not address importance of topic.Cdcon 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cdcon -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Applegoddess. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:41, Jan. 20, 2006
• Delete --Terence Ong 05:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Plug: Please come help develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Wikipedia:Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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.