Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinGW Developer Studio

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, the article lacks reliable sources, which means that it will fail WP:N. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MinGW Developer Studio

Stub with no references or assertion of notability. Article has had less than 50 edits since creation in Dec 2004, and no discussion that is relevant to the subject or article. Has been tagged with Template:Notability since Sep 2007. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it has minimal content and not an ad.--minghong (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has minimal content because it is non-notable. I did not claim it was advertising. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software, and the article does not have any reliable sources. Users have had ample time to fix the problems. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In terms of software, "notability" begins with the fact that it exists, is ready for download, and has official uses. Lambton ^T/_C 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Per Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence just existing is not enough to satisfy the Notability criteria. It has to be shown through reliable sources. Also please do not reorder comments in a discussion. Per Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence always add new comments at the end. meshach (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB... Point three would apply to one of the download locations (Simtel), rendering your point void. I apologise for moving my comment late, but this was required due to the fact that it was above the relisting line, and had to be placed chronologically above yours. Lambton ^T/_C 06:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB does not apply at all to this AfD. We are not discussing a website or web content. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that satisfies WP:RS, no links to indicate that it meets WP:N. The site listed in the article says their has not been a release of this software since 2005. meshach (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments in favor of deletion. Unless you have non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources you don't have a case for keeping this. WP:WEB has nothing to do with this and trying to apply it here is pure wikilawyering. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the website and software qualify as web content, which has specific notability guidelines under WP:WEB. Those guidelines clearly state a criteria for notability that satisfies this article. And who exactly would I be lawyering for? Lambton ^T/_C 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". This is not satisfied by this article. If that was me then probably everyone here would change their mind. meshach (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And directly before that quote that you took from the first inclusion criteria:

"...is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" (my emphasis).

So to be simple, the only arguments for deleting this article have so far come from a) Ignoring policy for web content and b) Paying attention to said policy, but taking it out of context. Lambton ^T/_C 21:29, 9 February 2008 (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.