- 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. Not a strong discussion of policy, but there's clearly no consensus indicated for deletion. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GNU Gatekeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator said on my talk page that this software is very famous among other things. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNU Gatekeeper is an important pice of software, and I think it does deserve a page in Wikipedia. If you want to call it "famous" is in the eye of the beholder, but it is recognized in the industry and the new release for example just got mentioned in the Wainhouse Reasearch Bulletin along with all the news from the commercial vendors. If you search Google for "GnuGk", you'll find a lot of references where it is used. The GnuGk website has a page with a number of well known institutions who are using it. --Willamowius (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When searching Google Scholar, you'll find over 50 references and citation for "GNU Gatekeeper": http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=%22GNU+Gatekeeper%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.233.45 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keeper this one, in my view jamesgibbon 21:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above. Numerous citations in Google Scholar and other reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it should be keeped. It's an important software in network industry.--MagicDesigner (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Also I think Joe Chill's operation is not proper. According to policy, on case of WP:N, we should use {{notability}} template and then follow other notability procedures. AfD is not proper for current case. --Mountain (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Joe Chill didn't follow the proper procedures listed on WP:FAILN. I don't see any notification for the creator, nor a {{notability}} tag on the article before he nominating the article for deletion. It is also not good to nominate an article for deletion immediately with notability reasons but ignore the truth that the article has 3 other languages. --PhiLiP (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A lot of Search engine results by Google scholar.--Wasami007 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2011 (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.