- 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. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HTTrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested on the grounds that "Since the article discusses a minor software project, it is unlikely there will ever be citable sources other than the project itself". Since that was the reason for the PROD in the first place - complete lack of independent sources - the editor who removed the PROD appears to be agreeing with it. Whatever, as an unsourced and apparently unsourceable article, I'm afraid policy means we can't keep it. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Over a dozen sources (books, plus technical reports from various universities and government agencies) were posted on the talk page in response to the PROD. A Google Scholar search returns hundreds more scholarly articles. Even if no single source discusses the software in great detail, the sheer number of them should provide more than enough reliably supported facts for an encyclopedia article. I get the impression that this AfD is based solely upon the misguided edit summary of the user who removed the PROD, and not any duly diligent attempt to examine the conspicuously posted sources, or to find further ones. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies if I'm not up to date, have we now replaced "has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources" with "has been listed in lots of directories and lists"? Guy (Help!) 16:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're characterizing all the sources listed on the talk page and Google Scholar as "directories and lists" that shows that you still haven't examined them. Please check more carefully before nominating articles in the future; nominators are expected to do at least a cursory search for sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a couple of secondary book references to the article that discuss the software in detail (a few pages in each book). Along with the the references provided by the author of the software on the article's talk page, e.g., a paragraph in [1], there are multiple reliable sources, at least a couple in depth, that discuss the software. That the software is used by the Library of Congress is an indication of significance. The makes the topic notable under general notability guidelines WP:GNG and software notability guidelines, WP:NSOFT. The article itself is not too promotional; I removed a peacock term. Notability of the topic and no major problems with the article suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mark's additions. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2013 (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.