Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CheetahTemplate

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 of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CheetahTemplate

Despite its Google hits, something tells me that it's simply advertising for something non-notable. --Khoikhoi 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: "Cheetah is included in FreeBSD and several Linux distributions: Gentoo, Fedora, Debian, and Ubuntu among others" makes it notable enough for me. It's open source, so commercial-style advertising is unlikely. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Open source and notable IMO. Mike 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GeorgeStephanek, but without that testimony it would likely be delete since Sourceforge shows pitifully few downloads and the article hits my number one spam button, starting with the name corectly intercapped as a weblink, so please can somoene clean it up if kept. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Should be renamed to Cheetah (Computing) or similar. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 23:24Z
  • JzG, for the record, there's between 60 and 200 downloads a day and it currently has an activity rank of 455 out of 110,278 total sourceforge projects. IMO, that's hardly pitiful. What do you mean by 'starting with the name corectly intercapped as a weblink'? - Tavis Rudd --64.69.80.177 00:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Traffic stats look good to me as well; 99.70 activity percentile on SF. I will clean it up. What JzG meant was the article should not start with an external link per Wikipedia style guidelines. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:51Z
  • I can be wrong about things, of course, but Sourceforge activity ranks are about the diffs checked in, aren't they? Given this is just hitting RC status a lot of uploads would not be a surprise. And the number of downloads is not 200-odd per day, it's 200-odd per release for the 2.0b version stream and not more than about 1500 per release for the 1.0 released product; many of these will be single users or sites keeping current ([1]). So I still don't see much evidence it's widely used, even while accepting the statements above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, you're right that checkin activity is irrelevant. In support of notability, here are some arguments. 1) I personally researched templating engines once when I was deciding which one to use, and Cheetah was one of the top candidates. 2) Cheetah Template is 4th hit on google for "Cheetah", a very generic word. 3) Linux distro packages exist (python-cheetah in Debian) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 11:14Z
  • Not disputed; I accept the statements of other Wikipedians who have specific expertise and no dog in the fight. If you look up there ^^^ you'll see I'm voting Keep on those grounds :-) - JzG 12:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to sourceforge's notes on project ranking the algorithm uses measures of "traffic + development + communication" but "The current statistics system excludes CVS and Mailing List data." I suspect their docs are out of date and that cvs commits do, in fact, influence the rank. JzG, for a more reliable indicator of usage see http://cheetahtemplate.org/whouses.html :) Tavis Rudd --64.69.80.177 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


I think he meant merge ?
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely be against Merge if that's what Timothy Clemans meant. "Merge" is usually a compromise attempt; no need for that :) since everyone has been voting Keep and I already cleaned up the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:29Z
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.