Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueGriffon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueGriffon[edit]

BlueGriffon (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)

Not vaporware, but an unreleased program that has no evidence of notability beyond being a finalist in an open software competition (that in itself doesn't appear to be notable). The previous program is notable, but it doesn't look like anyone has actually picked up on this yet as it hasn't even been publicly released yet. I don't have any problem with this being recreated in the future once it's released and there is some press on it, but right now it's just a bit of code that is being tinkered with. Terrillja talk 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's wrong: BlueGriffon has one public release, v0.5, and the first articles about it appeared recently (Silicon.fr, Soundscape out) since it got the top award at the OpenWorldForum a week ago. At 108,000 lines of code, an entry at archlinux and a few thousand daily users already, BlueGriffon is a bit more than a "bit of code"... BlueGriffon is the only wysiwyg editor able to edit all of CSS 2.1 and all what's implemented in browsers of CSS 3. It will also be the only editor html5-compliant, with UI for all html5-specific elements. And it's open-source. You said no evidence of notability? Daniel Glazman, 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.96.19 (talk)

The only one that you know of. As someone who has made software for companies that was never made for public release, there is all sorts of software out there that people don't know about. --Terrillja talk 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sources demonstrating notability. The Silicon.fr source mentions BlueGriffon once, in passing, in the last line of the piece. The Soundscape out link is just to the announcement that v0.5 is available. An entry at Archlinux confirms existence, which is good as far as it goes, but does nothing for notability. The sole source in the article merely confirms the award, which also does little for notability. The number of lines of code in the software is not material to its notability, as Wikipedia defines it - see also WP:NOTABILITY for the general notability guidelines applicable to this article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that 'unsigned' didn't sign his/her entry because I pretty much agree with all that is said there though it could also have been said that it includes a SVG editor. (There aren't many of them around.)

True, Blue Griffon is only just appearing after quite a long gestation starting, as I understand, at the end of a W3C meeting in La Napoule about three years ago over breakfast with Sir Tim Berners Lee who suggested to Daniel Glazman that he should seek a way to bring such a product into being. I think it is quite likely to become rather 'notable' before long.

The 'previous program' referred to is presumably Nvu. Granted that is notable but it is not true that it has not been released. It reached version 1 on 29th June 2005 though earlier versions were publicly released in the autumn of 2004. I seem to remember an announcement of over a million downloads from the original site. That has now closed but it is still available from a number of sources and the Cnet site reports over 400,000 downloads from that site only. (http://download.cnet.com/Nvu/3000-10247_4-10412423.html) It is certainly widely used.

But though Nvu stuck at version 1.0 the development did not stop there. An other worker took up the task of updating the product which for copyright reasons had to change its name to KompoZer and this still lives on. (http://kompozer.net/)

Wikipedia has pages on Blue Griffon on both French and Japanese sites so it would be illogical to ban it from the English site. I would like to suggest that the page be permitted from now on so that it can be kept up to date as BlueGriffon develops.Carolus21 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Each language Wikipedia can have different rules for inclusion or deletion. Whether or not this is logical, it's there. There are other procedural differences, too, which does make life difficult at times... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the page could stay in place with a request for more input on the history of development. Basically what is the story of the product. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia benefits of having detailed history of things (aka Products). The nature of the collective editing makes it something which is worth or not. It is always difficult to know at the start of the life of a product if something will become obsolete or not, but documenting product history or product genesis (sometimes mythology around a product) becomes a lot harder when the time has passed. There is value in keeping records of things. I'm in favor of keeping this page. KarlDubost (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we can't speculate on what will become notable. If the software never takes off, it will never meet WP:N. I have no prejudice against recreating it once it appears to be notable. Right now though, it doesn't appear to be such. --Terrillja talk 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official reference to the Open World Forum 2010 Innovation Award was added to the page. Press Release is pending. Glazou 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a co-organizer of the Open World Forum Innovation DemoCup, i confirm than the jury (who includes investors, entrepreneurs, Open Source managers from leading IT services companies, and consultants) was impressed about the demonstration of BlueGriffon, the quality product and business model behind. That for those reasons, than BlueGriffon was one of the 5 winner of this DemoCup. -- Lcseguin - 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)— Lcseguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep I think that BlueGriffon is well-enough established by the history of Daniel Glazman and his prior tools, Mozilla Composer and Nvu. Clearly, BlueGriffon is an update and advance of these prior projects. The recent 0.5 release seems to work for me, so it's not vaporware. While conflict of interest has been raised as an issue, the article has been scrubbed of non-NPOV. Also, conflict of interest doesn't destroy notability. To me, these facts (notable developer of prior notable software for the same purpose) are sufficient to establish notability of BlueGriffon, especially given its milestone release and favorable reception by the Open World Forum reviewers. Ultimately, if I were investigating HTML editors, I'd want to consider BlueGriffon. To me, all these facts, taken together, justify keeping the article. — HowardBGolden (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very borderline case. The creator, Daniel Glazman, is certainly notable. So is the program's predecessor Nvu. I say, merge the article into either the Daniel Glazman entry or the Nvu entry, and if it ever becomes widespread enough, with enough media coverage (which is very possible), then it can merit a separate article. But until then, merge it.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This makes sense to me. I'd prefer merging into Nvu as a separate section with a redirect on BlueGriffon. FWIW, my guess is that the article will become standalone in the next year or less. — HowardBGolden (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I disagree 100%. BlueGriffon has just nothing in common with Nvu, not a single line of code. It's not because it's yet another web editor made by same person that you can aggregate the data like you suggest. So let me summarize: different products with 0 lines shared, not same copyright owners, not same logo, not same feature set.Glazou 14:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response If you can establish notability by the byzantine WP rules, that would be great. I'd prefer that. If not, my suggestion for merging into Nvu is based on my assumption that the look and feel of BlueGriffon is similar to Nvu. (If this is an incorrect assumption, please correct me.) From the point of view of WP's readers, the facts that the code base is completely different and the copyright is different aren't that relevant. I want this article, or at least its content, kept. Please help make this happen. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep Ok, let's remove Netscape and add it to Mosaic's page, let's remove OpenOffice and add it to StarOffice, let's remove all forks and all apps "looking like" (in terms of UI) to another one. As I said earlier, BlueGriffon and Nvu may be use rather similar themese (but hey, they are BOTH wysiwig markup editors) but they are _entirely_ different. Let me say it clearly: I am totally shocked by the current discussion and I don't understand you guys at all.Glazou 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited, so the notability of the author or other software, whatever the relation to this software is, I think, not relevant. Glazou's comment about the subject not sharing code with Nvu is well taken, so merge seems inappropriate. We do not have a crystal ball, so keeping it in mainspace until it achieves notability seems ill advised. HowardBGolden, this software doesn't remind me of Nvu, the look and feel are very different. I hope the software succeeds, FWIW, since I would love to have a decent wysiwyg html editor again, missing HomePage very much, but regardless of that desire (since desire does not support notability), this does not appear to be notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I maintain the reasons I have given earlier on. A page is a receptacle for history. I would though recommend that BlueGriffon should be described into Comparison of HTML editors. On this page, there are quite a number of other tools. For example if we look at the [history of] BestAddress HTML Editor, it is difficult to imagine why BlueGriffon or any other authoring tools are not described in Wikipedia. KarlDubost (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Borderline, but probably the recent award is sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just flops over notability threshold. Article is what it should be right now. - Richfife (talk) 12:56, 6 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BlueGriffon&oldid=1137632336"