Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web-Developer Server Suite: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
delete
Line 70:
:::Okay, that's a good starting point. But I still feel that the suite lacks the "significant coverage" required to meet the GNG. Inclusion in a list doesn't necessarily mean it's notable (things are similar on Wikipedia—things which aren't considered "notable" can still be included on lists). With regards to your dissatisfaction with the GNG as a tool to assess notability for Web.Developer Server Suite, the only other guideline which might be applicable is [[Wikipedia:Notability (software)]] (although it's not really a "guideline" at all, just an essay). The criteria for inclusion are quite similar to the GNG, though. [[User:Chris the Paleontologist|<span style='font-family: "Verdana"; color:#c37a1c'>''CtP''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Chris the Paleontologist|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chris the Paleontologist|c]])</small> 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' clearly fails WP:GNG lacking WP:RS. aggressive [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing does not advance notability. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 
*'''Delete''' - no evidence of [[WP:N|notability]]; not even close to enough significant coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to establish that this product is notable. An attempt to include '''Notability''' as an in-article sub-heading to answer talk-page / AFD criticism is a pretty good indication that the product struggles to establish notability against [[WP:GNG]]. Though it's a [[WP:User essays|user essay]], [[WP:NSOFT]] gives a pretty good idea of what the WP community would expect to see to establish notability in this particular case. Also agree with the above - the bludgeoning and [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] are uncalled for. Try to keep it [[WP:CIV|civilised]]. [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)