Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie (program)

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 for now, with the proviso that evidence of notability is sorely needed and another AFD would be entirely appropriate in the near future if none is found. Turnstep 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie (program)

Appears to be nothing more than an obscure, single-author piece of BeOS freeware software, with no evidence given for widespread use or notability. It's not even mentioned in the list of BeOS programs. If evidence of notability comes to light, then I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, but until then I suggest that we should delete it. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article could be expanded, (which I'll do), and I might be able to get sme notability. All software articles should be kept in my opinion. Linuxerist L/T 17:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the (unmentioned) author is Pavel Císler, who created much of the BeOS interface (Tracker, the desktop/file manager that everyone uses, was mostly his work), and currently works on Finder at Apple. He's notable enough as software developers go. We have many articles on potentially un-notable pieces of software due to the notability of their authors. --Kiand 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't, however, think the plugins list needs to be a seperate article, nor should there be articles about individual plugins. --Kiand 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional Keep - let's see if there really is evidence of notability. - Runcorn 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. The El Reyko 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'evidence' means, but Eddie featured heavily in the BeOS Bible, a fairly hefty dead-tree book published in 1999 about BeOS, including a 5-page interview with its author (although not as heavily as its then-commercial competitor Pe (text editor), due to the books heavy inclination towards pay-software...). I'd be willing to suggest that its as notable, if not more so, than many of the entries on the list of text editors. --Kiand 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on this? It could well be the evidence we're looking for, but I'm afraid that I can't find "Eddie" listed in the table of contents. I would suggest that the interview you mentioned goes more towards establishing the notability of Pavel Císler than about any particular piece of software he created. Indeed, perhaps what we could do is to summarise the contents of this article and merge it into Pavel Císler—who does appear to be notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That TOC and the book beside me don't agree about contents in all cases so don't take it as canon, but its mentioned along with other text tools; during the text on Pe; during the StyledEdit section, and a few other places. --Kiand 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guideline in Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires that: "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news media, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine. A single such publication that is specifically about the software is sufficient; for publications that mention the software while not being specifically about them, and for publications of lower profile (such as a local newspaper or an e-zine), multiple such works are needed." So this helps, but it would probably not be sufficient on its own. Do you know of any other references? I've done a Google search, but I coudn't find anything that appeared to meet these criteria. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:41, 17 April 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.