Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acquisition (software)

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough. Otterathome (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this supposed to be a really popular Gnutella client on Mac OS based computer systems? (Or I remember at least it has been...) Also, a google search returns quite much results on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=Acquisition+Mac+OS&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Death (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If you didn't already know, 'Acquisition' is not just a name but also a common word. See Wikt:acquisition, so that search brings up every page with that word in it too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I do know, but then search for: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&q=Acquisition+Mac+OS+P2P&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= This combination should filter out most of the 'normal' acquisition hits... (but also lots of usuable ones) Old Death (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, we don't judge an articles notability on google hits, but instead on available third-party sources, if you add some to the article it may prove it is notable enough to keep.--Otterathome (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  http://torrentfreak.com/mac-bt-clients/ and http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/15/acquisition-2/2 are two results that come out when doing a (really) quick research. Maybe we should give the original authors the possibility to react and add some more reliable links. I'd like to add that ηoian is quite right about that it is often very difficult to get good reliable third party coverage for P2P clients, except for the really big ones. That's one of the reasons, why P2P has no good coverage on Wikipedia and most of the articles are much to short etc. Old Death (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P2P doesn't really have "reliable" third party citations usually (too much aggrandizing imo, and most of it is like self-published), however, this was mentioned a few times on torrentfreak, which is a citation used regularly on P2P related articles despite its unreliability. The article is outdated however. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources provided for this article don't meet our WP:RS and WP:N requirements. Third party reliable sources for P2P clients is absent because it isn't a general topic for a general encyclopedia. Maybe this article belongs on a specialist project with looser sourcing requirements. Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe some sort of Wikia project for cataloging software? (Not interested in running it myself, just throwing the idea out there.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I wonder if anyone bothered contacting the initial authors of the article or maybe the developpers of the software to make them get their article sourced and partially rewritten...? mfg, Old (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just send an eMail to their Dev(s). Let's see how they react before throwing the article away. ;) mfg, Old (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've wondered why people seem to feel that imo useful (or more useful) articles should go to wikias, when imo non-useful articles like the hundreds of extremely detailed anime/tv show ones don't (don't get me wrong, I like, anime, but I don't get why there needs to be separate articles for some of the things and why everything needs to be so detailed that its almost word for word from the wikias anyway). WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't go well just because you feel this doesn't belong in a "general" encyclopedia. That aside, what is the difference between Acquisition and XTorrent? Both are from the same developer, and both are designed for Macs.....Besides the fact that Acquisition is one of the few Mac oriented software that support BT, and that it also supports Gnutella, I really don't feel that it would be an easy task to prove (with citations that aren't fringe OR) that the software is "notable." Also, contacting the dev would be a violation of WP:COI, I don't want this to be turned into the farce that kept Threshold (online game) (where I felt sources were essentially generated out of thin air to keep the older version of the article article, which was much worse, promotional, and lacked notability, by the devs/friends)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EditI've updated the article with the two citations (AOLNEWS seems reasonably RS), although I don't get why now that Acquisition exists when XTorrent doesn't, seems to be more citations for that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TUAW didn't add anything but some commentary to a summary of a press release. This isn't a reliable source. It also appears you've made two citations to one source - notability requires multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. This is a single, not-independent (as a press release), and trivial source. Miami33139 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources there, and the first source sufficiently cites the two things that the source is inlined for, the cost and its notability for style and interface (as that is an opinion, therefore it has to be commentary). TUAW is run by AOLNews so it's not a self-published source or "press release". I would think that a sub-branch of AOLNews would not be considered "trivial". There is no rule that says a source can only be used to cite one thing, and notability is usually established by one or two citations citing an assertion of notability (although personally I feel that Acquisition should be deleted and that XTorrent should be created as there seems to me in my research more sources for XTorrent, you will notice that I have not !voted). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.