Talk:C-Tools 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

from VfD:

Nonnotable software. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • keep Medical freeware for diagnosis and treatment, for PDAs, developed by ACS. If Bones's tricorder and its related nonsense about PADDs, isolinear chips, kiloquads and the like get a few entries, this real technology gets one. Isn't the American Cancer Society of just a teensy bit more significance than Paramount? Beam me up, Scotty! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatent ad/vanity RoySmith 21:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad copy for a version that doesn't even exist. RickK 00:42, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I did a little research. It seems this thing is genuinely being developed/funded/something by the American Cancer Society (see http://www.cancer.org/c-tools ) which is a pretty decent credential IMHO. I'd imagine this article will stay low-key until the software is released, at which point it will be expanded. And it's supposed to be out fairly soon. Not sure whether it's freeware: several sources claim it is, but cancer.org shows a retail-box-type graphic. Either way, notable enough for me. Starblind 02:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • ACS says upfront that it's free to healthcare professionals. It isn't going to be a lot of use to the rest of us. Whoever nominated this for Vfd: Get a life. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • This is an absolutely unnaceptable response to a legitimate VfD listing, Tony. You may disagree with the listing, but you have no right to make personal attacks on those who list it. RickK 09:02, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Accepted. Criticism withdrawn. I apologise unreservedly to the nominator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable. Bryan 18:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a question for those voting Keep: How can nonexistant software be notable? According to the article, this software has not even been released yet. RickK 21:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair question. Several points of rebuttal: It's coming very soon--Q1 2005, which we're in right now--if it had been 2007 or 2008 my vote may have been different. Also, the support of the ACS adds a lot of credibility. This isn't a freeware game made by some kid. Finally, being in development is not a reason for exclusion as far as I can see: we have extensive articles for Windows Longhorn and even Duke Nukem Forever... hell, there's even a page for Windows Blackcomb, not due until 2012!! Starblind 23:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good point. Before voting keep, I checked that the software was under Beta test. [1] [2]. By my personal standards, ACS is a reputable organization and if they say they're running betas I take their word for it. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Niteowlneils 22:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 00:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the distro is notable. Wyss 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Hello I am the author of this entry. I have to admit that as a noob to wikipedia I didn't realize that I should of complete the whole entry at one time. If you visit our Web site you will see that it is a real project and that we just finished the Beta Test today of both the Palm and Pocket PC versions. Anyway if you choose to remove this as not being complete I will understand and post it again when I can site down and make a good go of it. Hopefully I will also be updating the American Cancer Society, Great American Smokeout and other ACS releasted articles soon. Thanks for letting me speak my mind and sorry about the incomplete article. I will flesh it out more tonight--Acsblogger 04:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe add a {{stub}} to it. This is notable enough and has the support of a notable organisation. It's a work in progress, and I say Acsblogger deserves a chance to work on the article some more. --Deathphoenix 16:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So does this vote open the door for articles on any and all vaporware? RickK 23:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand why you'd consider this vaporware. Based on every definition I've ever seen, 'vaporware' is software that's been announced or hyped but isn't actually in serious production (usually with the implication that it never will be). This already has a working beta, and therefore isn't vaporware. Even the most cynical among us would have to admit that this has a better chance of being released than Duke Nukem Forever, and that has an article. Starblind 18:00, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • This software has not been released. Unless you're a fortune teller and can say for certain that it WILL be released, it's vaporware. RickK 23:52, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see what the problem is with the software not yet being released, since it's been in beta test, which means some actual ordinary target users are running actual copies of this software on their palmtops as we speak. If I were looking for a precedent for articles on vaporware, I'd go for software packages that are no more than names, such as Windows Blackcomb. They do exist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] VfD

Given the voting log's presence in this particular section, I will assume that voting has closed for this article - but I would have voted for delete. Is it Wiki policy that all software products deserve an article or is there a defined standard as to which should be included and which should not? What makes this product more deserved of inclusion in an encyclopedia than all of the other medical references available? Does the blessing of a significant organization (i.e. the ACS) automatically make this product significant? Edwardian 16:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are no fixed standards. In general items that are verifiable may tend to be hard to delete, unless they appear to be useless. If you think the article should have been deleted, it's acceptable to nominate again, but the result of the vote would probably be the same. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/-/t/Talk%7EC-Tools_2.0_21da.html"