Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoop (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 keep. --Coredesat 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scoop (software)
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY (no assertion of notability, because no third party links) Jackaranga 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, spam, not notable. Realkyhick 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This software is in use at multiple notable sites (e.g. Kuro5hin, DailyKos), and was apparently influential on the development of Drupal, which suggests some degree of notability. A quick search didn't turn up any reliable sources, however. JulesH 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, limited coverage in several books, tech media[1][2][3] & places like Salon. It's in some ways an order of magnitude more complex than other blogging systems (that are designed to be lightweight and installable) and almost every installation is limited to sites that can either hire Rusty Foster at the cost of the wife's Cadillac or have equivalent experience available. It almost got used by the Dean campaign[4], and I thought it was used by at least one 2006 candidate, but I can't find that now. Its complexity actually means it doesn't get the "Scoop for Dummies" book coverage that other software does. Alternatively, merge with Rusty Foster. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Not spam, not as notable as Slash (Slashdot alone gives that notability), but is indeed something that has a presence. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per comment by JulesH above. Ubernostrum 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment After he tagged this article with a PROD notice, I suggested to Jackaranga that it would be better on the whole to spend time improving the article than to spend time getting it deleted; his response was to open this AfD. Due to a potential conflict of interest (I used to do business with the developers of Scoop), I will no longer actively edit this article, but I'll be happy to help others who're interested in improving it if the article survives AfD. Ubernostrum 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Uber, I don't see anything like WP:COI in this regard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I know that officially that's not enough for COI, but I'd still feel icky doing it, and so I'd rather stay out of it as much as I can ;) Ubernostrum 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Uber, I don't see anything like WP:COI in this regard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment After he tagged this article with a PROD notice, I suggested to Jackaranga that it would be better on the whole to spend time improving the article than to spend time getting it deleted; his response was to open this AfD. Due to a potential conflict of interest (I used to do business with the developers of Scoop), I will no longer actively edit this article, but I'll be happy to help others who're interested in improving it if the article survives AfD. Ubernostrum 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I was really hopping when I tagged it with PROD that someone would address the issues and remove the tag, but the tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. If you can address WP:VERIFY in particular and add reliable sources then there is no need to leave the AfD open, and we can close as keep. If there are issues with the article and nobody is prepared to fix them, then it is normal it will be nominated for deletion. I just think it's ashame when wikipedia becomes a place for people to promote their new product which has not yet had much coverage. Personally I don't think it is notable enough for wikipedia as there are other wikis for software. Most of this article is just a feature list, it doesn't explain why people use this software, what are it's benefits as regards other similar software ? what are it's drawbacks ? Why is it well known ? (is it well known ?) It just reads like the creator's description of it. It's a bit too much like, "our product does this, this and this, it is used by so and so", and it has a token "disadvantages" paragraph, even though there must be many more or everyone would use it, especially as it is free. For example "Thorough and well-written documentation,", if people really do want to advertise their product here they should at least abide by the policies, otherwise it should be no surprise it is nominated for deletion.Jackaranga 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's a shame that you have so much time to spend lobbying for article deletion, but apparently none whatsoever to devote to improving article content. Perhaps you'd consider a change of priorities? Ubernostrum 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment I don't feel like writing an article, because it takes time and thought, I'm going through List of content management systems trying to clear the spam. Jackaranga 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I could improve the article but don't feel like doing so" is not a valid criterion for deletion on Wikipedia. Please close this and any other AfDs you've opened for that reason. Ubernostrum 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment I don't feel like writing an article, because it takes time and thought, I'm going through List of content management systems trying to clear the spam. Jackaranga 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's a shame that you have so much time to spend lobbying for article deletion, but apparently none whatsoever to devote to improving article content. Perhaps you'd consider a change of priorities? Ubernostrum 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was really hopping when I tagged it with PROD that someone would address the issues and remove the tag, but the tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. If you can address WP:VERIFY in particular and add reliable sources then there is no need to leave the AfD open, and we can close as keep. If there are issues with the article and nobody is prepared to fix them, then it is normal it will be nominated for deletion. I just think it's ashame when wikipedia becomes a place for people to promote their new product which has not yet had much coverage. Personally I don't think it is notable enough for wikipedia as there are other wikis for software. Most of this article is just a feature list, it doesn't explain why people use this software, what are it's benefits as regards other similar software ? what are it's drawbacks ? Why is it well known ? (is it well known ?) It just reads like the creator's description of it. It's a bit too much like, "our product does this, this and this, it is used by so and so", and it has a token "disadvantages" paragraph, even though there must be many more or everyone would use it, especially as it is free. For example "Thorough and well-written documentation,", if people really do want to advertise their product here they should at least abide by the policies, otherwise it should be no surprise it is nominated for deletion.Jackaranga 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Additionally, when you feel an article does not sufficiently establish the notability of its subject, apply the "notability" template first. If you feel an article does not cite any references or sources, apply the "unreferenced" template. These templates exist for a reason, and are preferable over PROD/AfD as steps to get an article improved. Again, I ask that you please close this and your other current AfDs, and instead make use of the infrastructure Wikipedia provides for improving articles. Ubernostrum 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hi, don't take an AfD personaly, if the consensus is for the article to stay, then it shall, that's why AfD exists, because it is too hard for one user to make the decision on his own, and he might not know some of the arguments and technicalities involved. A few of the articles I have been tagging were deleted already, and they were not unlike this one, so I don't think the AfD is unwarranted, perhaps the article does not deserve to be deleted, I don't know, that is what this page is for deciding. Jackaranga 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- All I'm trying to tell you is that there is a process for improving articles which do not assert notability or provide enough references, and that process is not "immediately go to AfD". You should have made use of the available templates to place notifications on the articles instead, and solicited help from other users in improving these articles; deletion is the process for an article which you feel has no chance of meeting Wikipedia's standards, not the first thing you should propose when you find a problem. Based on that, I again ask that you close the AfDs you've opened, and re-read WP:DEL, WP:DELPRO and WP:AADD to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for deleting articles. Ubernostrum 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep deletionism (the false belief that 'pruning is more important than planting' sucks. -Stevertigo 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, tag with {{Unreferenced}}, and help clean it up. AfD is extreme and premature.Terry Carroll 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Asserts notability ("Scoop was originally developed for use on Kuro5hin..."). Needs sourcing, but AfD'ing notable subjects to encourage sourcing is using a sledgehammer on a fly. Vadder 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your support. I am managing to get most of the spam from List of Content Management Systems removed. Some articles are less clear cut, which is why I prefered to get more opinions on them by using an AfD, instead of a PROD. (I have started AfDs for others because the PROD tag was removed without improvement in some cases). Jackaranga 14:59, 3 August 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.
