Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aglets

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. As multiple editors point out, notability is based on WP:SIGCOV, and is not affected by whether a software is still in use. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aglets[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a software project that garnered brief trade media notice about 25 years ago, then was abandoned. While the concept of mobile agents has persisted and is notable, this particular software package is not. Suggest we delete this article and fold any relevant content into mobile agent —dgies^t_c 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below. ~~the only inline source at the moment is a passing mention, and there are no significant secondary sources otherwise to pass WP:GNG.~~ PopoDameron ⁠talk 04:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not sources. The problem is this is defunct, non-notable software. Is this actually used anywhere, or is it a flash in the pan from 20 years ago? —dgies^t_c 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgies: Why would being defunct necessarily point to being non-notable? By that argument, we should delete the article for Windows 3.0 too since all of its sources are from the 90s and nobody uses it anymore. I would argue that if a piece of software was once notable, then it is notable forever. PopoDameron ⁠talk 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a really cool idea, despite me never hearing about it before. There's not insignificant amount of stuff written about it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. There are probably more in the dreaded second page of Google results. Seems like good stuff. I'll see if I can add stuff to the article tomorrow, but to me it passes the bar. SWinxy (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any current coverage of this? The objection is not lack of sources, its lack of relevance. Looks like this project dies in its cradle 20 years ago and nobody really used it for anything. —dgies^t_c 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But like, is that a reason for not being notable? The latest of the 8 sources is from 2009, which I admit is a long time ago. I don't think there's a guideline that excludes this because of that though. Notability is not temporary. SWinxy (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile agents, totally agree with nominator. There may well be 'sources out there', but the principle here is a defunct software tool that is a subset of a wider toolset. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the book sources identified by SWinxy. No prejudice against merging as an editorial preference (after this discussion is closed), but I don't see any basis for deleting the article here at WP:AFD. Suriname0 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be an argument for deletion that I'd agree with but I have not seen one here yet. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Thincat (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2023 (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.