Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynix (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 keep. Early close as KEEP per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynix (software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software with no cover from third party reliable sources. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - A quick glance at your talk page shows that you have quite a track record of trying to get good articles deleted, and thus having your deletion nominations denied. You might want to reconsider the community standards on what really is and isn't worthy of deletion, to save everyone time and stress. If something needs improvement, you're supposed to tag it as such, not just throw your hands up and say "delete! delete! delete!"; this isn't a repository of perfect articles which need no further work. Skylarstrickland (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have an article for NOTIS - if that's notable, why isn't this? This was more widely-used. Nearly every American has used a Dynix terminal in a library at some point over the past 30 years.184.4.95.166 (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but as the article you've mentioned, we need third party reliable sources covering the matter, not common sense. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable per its widespread usage, as previously stated. I'm working on adding more references -- but even by your own [terse] admission above (and btw, love the "we don't need common sense" statement!), you've improperly handled this: you should have tagged the article as needing additional references, rather than nominating it for deletion. If we deleted every article that needs more sources, Wikipedia would probably lose half its content in an instant. Skylarstrickland (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this. I recommend you to work first on your sandbox and then, when you feel the article ready, move it into the main namespace. Remember that Wikipedia relies on the notability of its topics, and the topics are supported by third party reliable sources. Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books turns up various references. I've added a couple of these into the article. With these and others, I reckon there's enough out there to confirm that this software played a significant historical role in its field. AllyD (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are sufficient to establish notability. If you do a Google search of libraryjournal.com you'll get some more background info (other library journals are available in academic databases). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - The topic appears to at least meet WP:GNG, per [1], [2]. Per section WP:ATD of Wikipedia's Deletion policy, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:38, 28 May 2012 (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.