Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesis (software)
From 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:33Z
[edit] Nemesis (software)
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:PROG Nv8200p talk 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, blogs are not considered reliable sources. If appropriate resources are added by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf photoman 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC), oops, thought I was in the Golden Chicken Plant Alf photoman 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)- Delete - no evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Walton monarchist89 15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not another Freshmeat and cannot cover every piece of software. Nemesis looks as a work of single person and no information is given who (or whether) does use it. Not being used practically means unmaintainable article (not that the current text contains plenty of insightful of information). Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The majority decides. Since I am the writer of this article I feel like apologizing twice: for the article and for the software. Concerning the software: It is indeed a work of single person but while no information is given who (or whether) does use it does not necessarily mean that it is not used. It is indeed used for quite a long within a university (where I am doing my research) and within the next months will be freely publicly available. I suppose that if notability is established by evidence of coverage in independent third-party sources, well yes this software is not being used practically and since WP is not another Freshmeat and cannot cover every piece of software you may proceed and delete it. Concerning the article: I wrote it after searching for similar articles (similar subject/audience/etc) and found plenty of them in a quite miserable state where in no case the current text contains plenty of insightful of information. My intentions were to be as polite as possible (I didn't want in no case to be accused of vandalism or advertisement) and I didn't want to include several pages just to make it seem important but in any case this article is not an unmaintainable article. However if this is what it looks, then you may once again proceed and delete it. In any case I do not intent adding info for the next few days, so if you like please feel free to delete it. Fkar 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't intended to be sarcastic or ironic or devaluating. Maintenance of this kind of articles is problematic because the information may get obsoleted at any moment and this is quite a demotivating for people to put their time here. During several years of my presence on Wikipedia I expanded one and only one article about a less known software (Metakit). Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not really someone who would proudly call himself a wikipedian (in fact this was my first contribution ever) as to be familiar with difficulties faced by hard workers trying to maintain stuff like this; therefore I totally agree with you. Speaking about obsolete and maintenance however, please keep in mind that this article was tagged for deletion within the first three weeks from its initial entry. Fkar 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't intended to be sarcastic or ironic or devaluating. Maintenance of this kind of articles is problematic because the information may get obsoleted at any moment and this is quite a demotivating for people to put their time here. During several years of my presence on Wikipedia I expanded one and only one article about a less known software (Metakit). Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 27 February 2007 (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.
