Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenProj (2nd nomination)
- 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, apparently. Daniel 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's presently more active on SourceForge[1] than projects (with articles) such as Pidgin, Inkscape, and wxWidgets. It survived AfD just two weeks ago, give it more time to improve. (SEWilco 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Notablility is distinctly seperate from "fame" or "popularity". A subject is sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, in which case OpenProj does not.--Hu12 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now - I may be slightly biased as I'm a SourceForge junky who's been watching the project grow and progress, but renominating an article after two weeks is a big no-no in my books, except when circumstances change or new evidence is brought to light. — xDanielx T/C 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article was nominated previously as a Contested Speedy WP:CSD#A1, as "little or no context". Previously This was speedy deleted twice as Spam WP:CSD#G11. As noted by the context of the last debate even bringing this article to AFD was noted by one editor as unecessary..."The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre". OpenProj Has had four (4) months to either be expanded or fix the previous problems. It is not Wikipedia's mission to promote or advertise non-notable software. This is an encyclopedia.--Hu12 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand your analysis. This article has existed for around 2.5 weeks, not 4 months (we can't count older CSD-spam'd versions, since editors can't build off of deleted content). And the result of the very recent AfD was Keep, not Keep on the condition that notability skyrockets in the next week. — xDanielx T/C 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a host to promote or advertise non-notable software. --Hu12 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand your analysis. This article has existed for around 2.5 weeks, not 4 months (we can't count older CSD-spam'd versions, since editors can't build off of deleted content). And the result of the very recent AfD was Keep, not Keep on the condition that notability skyrockets in the next week. — xDanielx T/C 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. An AfD filed less than a month after a prior AfD that voted "Keep' is an AFD filed in Bad Faith. jonathon 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing someone without justification of making Bad faith nomination is considered a form of personal attack. --Hu12 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD was closed "keep" on 29 October 2007. The second AfD was filed 8 November 2007. IOW, less than ten days after closing, it was renominated. From WP:NOTAGAIN "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Pay attention to that last phrase. jonathon 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a flawed assertion. Three votes were "Week Keep" and one keep. The essay WP:NOTAGAIN clearly notes An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. WP:NOTABILITY was not the reason for its previous nomination[2]. It is hardly frivolous in any sense of the term to seek broader consensus.--Hu12 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, but not in the course of a week. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but inclusion criterion does not.--Hu12 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, but not in the course of a week. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a flawed assertion. Three votes were "Week Keep" and one keep. The essay WP:NOTAGAIN clearly notes An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. WP:NOTABILITY was not the reason for its previous nomination[2]. It is hardly frivolous in any sense of the term to seek broader consensus.--Hu12 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD was closed "keep" on 29 October 2007. The second AfD was filed 8 November 2007. IOW, less than ten days after closing, it was renominated. From WP:NOTAGAIN "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Pay attention to that last phrase. jonathon 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the guidelines on what makes software notable, the following factors are to be considered:
- List of Reviews in:
* Newspaper articles;
= check
* Books; * User Guides; * TV Documentaries; * Magazine Reviews;
= check
- List of distributions that include it;
= unknown
- List of:
* Multiple non-trivial articles;
= check
* Reliable published works:
o newspaper and magazine articles;
= check
o books;
o television documentaries;
o websites;
= check
o published reports by consumer watchdog organizations; * Awards it has won;
= check
* Distribution channels;
= unknown
Obviously the article needs a lot of work. The only component of the software notability criteria that it might not meet is distributions that include it. jonathon 22:10, 12 November 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.