Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitz (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 Delete: No assertion of notability. Recreatable if notability can be demonstrated. 1 != 2 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Text is almost speediable for lack of an assertion of notability (and very little context), but since this was already subject of a deletion review I'm seeking community input. Unless someone can add sources which establish notability this article should be deleted or merged. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of assertion/evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Chealer (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete -- [ip] for balance and technology reasons. Glitz, like Cairo, is an intergral part of the freedesktop.org project. It needs more work. The mailing lists contain ample information. This project provides opengl stability to X.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.91.230 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone translate this? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia cannot compete with Freshmeat and cover such volatile topics. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What the above IP user was saying is basically that Glitz is notable because of it's important role in freedesktop.org, a pretty big linux movement that connects several Unix operating systems. DavidJ710| talk 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to withdraw if someone can add to the article, but as it is, it doesn't even assert notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (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.