Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise (file sharing)

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. - Mailer Diablo 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elise (file sharing)

Non-notable vanity article. We'd have twice as many articles if we had one for each P2P client that's in verson 0.004 with its own author-created "proprietary open source" license (major oxymoron). --midkay 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a "vanity article"? I don't see why it is that way. Because I wrote it? Does that matter if the article is well-written (yes, I agree that 'stub' is probably best suited for the article at this point)? Would it be better if someone else wrote it? There are plenty of different P2P clients that are on Wikipedia that doesn't have a "stable" version or where the article is a stub/written by author. And why does "0.004" matter? If I choose to call the next version 5.2, does it magically become more useful for Wikipedia? As far as the license goes, if the "proprietary" phrasing bothers you, just change it. Ullner 08:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, it would be better if you didn't write about yourself, instead letting others do it when you or your product becomes notable. This helps guard against potential conflicts of interests; please see WP:VAIN. Does the software pass WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria or have some other particular claim to fame? Any external sources for the information in the article as self-published information is rarely considered a reliable source? Weregerbil 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it would probably be considered more reliable if someone else had written it. However, I tried to write the article as neutral as possible, and I think I did a 'okay' job. TheParanoidOne added that the article should be a stud, and I agree that it is just that. As far as the criterias, I think Elise pass #1. There have been several non-trivial works published. Sure, there is no direct notable 'fame' associated with Elise, however, there is no other software, that I know of, that is an platform independent ADC client. That alone make Elise 'one of a kind'. I guess adding a direct link to the license and/or history would be great. Ullner 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Where are these "several non-trivial works"? Please provide links or citations. Right now, this looks like a new and obscure program that has received little to no attention of any kind. —Celithemis 08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Different versions is available for anyone to view. According to SF's stat page, Elise was ranked, in August, 5,705 with 61 downloads and 1,240 web hits. (No, I did not sit and downloaded those myself or pressed 'Refresh' in my browser.) As I interpret the numbers for the different months, there's an steady increase in users. (I know, WP:SOFTWARE argue that user number isn't a criteria, though it seems to be an argument for this deletion proposal.) Ullner 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
How is number of users an argument against this? I mentioned that it's an early version of a quite unknown piece of software.. --midkay 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my first comment, would calling the next version "5.2" (or whatever seem "mature") be better? The stats show that more and more people know about Elise. I didn't know there was a "x amount of users must know about the application for it to be allowed on Wikipedia" clause. Ullner 09:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If you call the next version 5.2, I can assure you that you would be considered a fool. My advice: develop the software, and if they like it, they'll use it. --Dennis The TIger 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since there is nothing to indicate that this has been the subject of nontrivial third-party published works or otherwise meets WP:SOFTWARE. —Celithemis 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... Oh, well. In any case, if you do delete it, please change Direct Connect (file sharing) to point "Elise A platform independent ADC client. " to http://elise.sf.net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 Sep 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE - certainly 2, 3 and 4, and I see no evidence that it passes 1. Also it fails the guideline recommendation (not writing about a prog you've written). --Mnemeson 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A software is notable when people use it, when it's verifiable and when it's referenced by third parties. Sorry, don't mean to make any personal attacks, but a software in v0.04 is completely non-notable, besides, if it's no different from any other crap p2p software, how's it more notable?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:26, 3 September 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.