Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate++ (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. Sources have been provided which lead to a rough consensus that this appears sufficiently notable. The article clearly still requires substantial cleanup but appears notable in principle. ~ mazca ^talk 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. None of the sources establish notability, and I couldn't find anything significant on Google. The article has already been deleted three times (see old AFD). Laurent (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly Speedy Delete under criterion G4. The previous AfD was some time ago, but the article still doesn't address the issues raised. The sources are self-published, with the possible exception of the Code Project article written by a student - but even fail WP:SELFPUB as they make dubious claims about the performance of the Standard Template Library. Searches do not reveal [independent coverage that would warrant inclusion. decltype (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Switch to Keep based on significant coverage[1] in fr:Programmez!, which seems to meet WP:RS. decltype (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Independent reviews at: [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; etc. LotLE×talk 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these souces are reliable. Did you really have a look at them? The last one is certainly not an "independent review", it's a bug tracker. Laurent (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LotLE’s refs. Samboy (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since apparently nobody is looking at the sources, here is a short review:
  • [8] - Non-notable shareware website which only has a description of the product (most likely written by the authors of Ultimate++).
  • [9] - Non-reliable, self-published source
  • [10] - A forum post by the author of Ultimate++
  • [11] - Another non-notable shareware website
  • [12] - A personal webpage (non-reliable)
  • [13] - A bug tracker (no idea why LotLE calls that an "independent review")
  • Laurent (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no reason to look at them. I know that Lulu's opinions are so different than mine that any links that he posts and calls significant coverage really isn't. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually responding to Samboy as I was under the impression that he "voted" keep based on the number of references rather than on their quality. Laurent (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I know a lot of poeple who use this software. And comparing it to some other articles on IDEs on wikipedia (for example compare ultimate++ to this one: PellesC), if they do not get deleted: this one is definitly worth keeping.. I mean there is notable software written in it etc... why delete it? The article is neutral and everything... I also think that wikipedia should put the claim of "beeing complete" more into the foreground and ultimate++ definitly belongs to the list of wikipedias articles about frameworks and IDEs of C++. Otherwise they would just not be complete.

129.187.200.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC). [reply]

• • WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. If PellesC is even less notable than Ultimate++ then it should probably be deleted too, but that's a different issue. Laurent (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Other stuff exists actually CAN be an argument for keeping or deleting an article (see the WP:Other stuff exists). It is not like there is thousands of comparable entries that keep appearing in Wiki. Number of comparable software is in fact quite limited, there is only about a dozen of actively used C++ GUI toolkits in existence (and about the same number of IDEs). All seem to be covered by wiki now, which sounds reasonable.
• Keep Notable references are sparse but exist. wxWidgets and WTL consider this project to be a competition: [14] [15]. It is also mentioned as system being in use in embedded devices: [16]. Critical review seems to be here: [17]. It appears to be quite often mentioned in various forums as possible option, e.g. [18] (more examples exist). Wikipedia lists many similar projects that are about as notable as this one, see VCF Juce TnFOX fpGUI FLTK FOX toolkit. 00:18 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. Moreover, in my opinion these links do not help establish notability. [19] and [20] are wikis which are not reliable sources. It's actually very possible that these pages have been partly written by the authors of Ultimate++. [21] and [22] are blogs which are not reliable sources. Finally, [23] is a forum, so not a reliable source either. Laurent (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Other stuff exists agreed. However, the question is how detailed wikipedia wants to be. IMHO, mix of various references, even if borderline notable, creates impression that the information provided by the article is useful for wikipedia users. Personally, when I encounter any new term unknown to me, my first reaction is to find it out in wikipedia for balanced review/overview. As I expect this to work for e.g. "FLTK", then it should work here too (that is the reason for quoting similar articles - IMHO, they should all be kept). This can be verified, to some degree, by the article traffic statistics. 10:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk)

• Comment (as I have already voted Keep): there is a number of possibly notable non-English references: [24] - two articles in printed Polish 'Software Developers Journal', issues 2005-11 and 2005-12. There appear to have been two articles in printed French journal Programmez, issues 104 and 114 [25] [26] (links summary of articles in journal with page preview). Also, links like this [27], while not in fact making this notable, appear to suggest that "Ultimate++" is term somebody would miss in WP. This is definitely non-notable: [28] or [29] but supports the idea that the number of similar entries is indeed limited (per WP:Other stuff exists, compare that to the list of major StarWars characters...)

Obscure but perhaps weakly notable: [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be mentioned in some books: [31] [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the French source provided by decltype (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2010 (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.