Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwic

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. W.marsh 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwic

Non-notable and half-written software that has been abandoned since 1998, according to the article itself -- Aim Here 13:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a working piece, altough obsolote; however, its license allows for modification, so it can be a base for a more robust implementation.

(if you want to see the Java version at work, look at http://www.jole.fi/research/gwic/Java-gwic-422/ ) --Frigo 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also a version of GWIC with the GPLed ELS coder instead of the patented QM coder, but I don't know if it is compatible with the original (I guess not), or if it is as accepted. --Frigo 14:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as dead software. Stifle 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95 then why this isn't deleted?

It is Open Source -> new versions are possible --80.85.50.204 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep/merge? If the format is dead or no longer supported, that doesn't mean it's not important as part of the history of (in this case) computer image processing. Maybe it can be merged into a general article on image file formats. (If it was never finished or implemented anywhere, then delete.)Thatcher131 17:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This algorithm was never important historically, and the article makes no claims to that effect. And it's abandoned status means that it probably never will be. If there really is a comprehensive list of file compression algorithms on WP then maybe you can stick it there. -- Aim Here 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 277 Google hits for gwic wavelet, and none for the quoted full name of the program. Sure, more work could be done on it, but until someone picks it up and it becomes notable, it's not worth an article. -- Mithent 01:11, 11 February 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.