Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheese (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The result was Withdrawn. Schuym1 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheese (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not verifiable. Laudak (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep - even though it reads like an ad and little more, plenty of ghits and even an apparently objective article in an online publication. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Google hits do not show notability same with one reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Nother source. and another. I have no stake in this software's survival, sale, or notability. But it clearly does have traction and, I would argue, notability. After more research, I'm even removing "weak" from my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are unreliable blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SELFPUB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel you're applying WP:SELFPUB appropriately. Gnews shows at least a half-dozen hits. Blogs aren't off the table, in my view-- people do read them. Anyway, I stand by my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no proof that the author of both blogs have significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits do not show notability. The software is not even mentioned in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're arguing for the sake of it. Did you check any of the other sources? Why are you so intent upon proving lack of notability here, when clearly there are numerous examples beyond the two you dismiss outright. You are not giving an argument-- you are quoting the same phrases over and over. And when you search you need to try other search terms (like, e.g., Cheese linux), not just the one in the article title. You'll have to work a little harder to persuade me. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look at the sources in the Google News search. What do you mean by numerous examples? You only posted three sources. It also isn't mentioned in this Google News Search. There is mainly download sites in this search. Schuym1 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're arguing for the sake of it. Did you check any of the other sources? Why are you so intent upon proving lack of notability here, when clearly there are numerous examples beyond the two you dismiss outright. You are not giving an argument-- you are quoting the same phrases over and over. And when you search you need to try other search terms (like, e.g., Cheese linux), not just the one in the article title. You'll have to work a little harder to persuade me. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no proof that the author of both blogs have significant coverage in reliable sources. Hits do not show notability. The software is not even mentioned in Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel you're applying WP:SELFPUB appropriately. Gnews shows at least a half-dozen hits. Blogs aren't off the table, in my view-- people do read them. Anyway, I stand by my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SELFPUB. Schuym1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are unreliable blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Nother source. and another. I have no stake in this software's survival, sale, or notability. But it clearly does have traction and, I would argue, notability. After more research, I'm even removing "weak" from my recommendation. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits do not show notability same with one reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I'm trying to follow WP:N, too. We're both interpreting (notability is not objective), in any case. Now, as for "numerous examples", try this J L G 4 1 0 4 16:15, 24 January 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.