Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bordeaux (software)

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 arguments for deletion are stronger. Per WP:V, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And the blog post cited at the bottom of the discussion probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Sandstein 07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux (software)

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

Unremarkable minor league commercial fork of a popular freeware package. This article reads like an advertisement, and IMHO would likely get deleted if it were tagged for speedy deletion as spam, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and go through AFD instead. Simple Bob (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not read like a advertisement, it reads the same way CodeWeavers reads! If Bordeaux should be removed then CodeWeavers and Cedega should be removed at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twickline (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, please read: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: What about article x? Fleet Command (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wine page, Bordeaux is "is a Wine GUI configuration manager that runs winelib applications. It also supports installation of third party utilities, installation of applications and games, and the ability to use custom configurations." Possibly it merits a page for itself, but not a page like this one.
It reads like an advertisement, and seems to be actively maintained to remain exclusively in that vein

Criticism of Bordeaux is removed from the article [1] & [2]

A near identical article has been posted to the wineHQ wiki by a "Tom Wickline"

Delete as non-Encyclopaedic Kiore (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Just unencyclopedic Fleet Command (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fleetcommand: You placed your own text in the middle of my edit so it looks like all I said was the following "*Delete as non-Encyclopaedic" line that was originally the summation of the preceding 4 lines. I'm assuming good faith that it was an accident & trust you will edit your comments so they aren't slap bang in the middle of mine. Kiore (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Now fixed by Uncle G, thanks Kiore (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, did I? I'm sorry. It didn't look like that way to me at all. Judging by indentation, I thought the other four lines should be from someone who had forgotten to sign his comment. To avoid this problem, please stick to Wikipedia standard formatting of AFDs: Your comment should start with a * and your recommended verdict (i.e Delete, Keep, Merge, etc.) should precede your comment. Fleet Command (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per nom, "Unremarkable minor league commercial fork of a popular freeware package". However there is some discussion of it out there, and I consider recognisably distinct distros to (just about, in this case) warrant coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the following reasons:
1. The product is not notable:
  1. There are a number of references to it out on the web but on inspection it is clear that proponents of the product have heavily promoted the product on Linux/BSD oriented Wikis and listing services. It is difficult to find meaningful web references to it that don't originate in this article (Including its original on their site) or their press releases
  2. There are comparisons, reviews and references on the internet but none of the ones I could find are on notable sites
  3. The article's references all seem to originate with the Bordeaux team.
2. In its present form it does once again have the criticism section restored, but other than that the article lacks an NPOV and reads like an ad. The criticism section has problems of its own including referencing a page on the Bordeaux site that has been blocked.
3. The primary author of the page has a massive WP:COI Ref: Interview with Tom Wickline, of the Bordeaux Project and demonstrates WP:OWN of the page with his constant reverts of other editors changed. At best there's enough to make a good stub, but this should only be entertained if reliable independent references can be found. (NB: Replacing my earlier comment) Kiore (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the fact that Twickline (talk · contribs) has received a 72 hour ban for advertising/promotion speaks volumes here. I really do think we have a strong case for speedy deletion. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:16, 12 November 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) 00:38, 18 November 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a source: a blog post containing a detailed review [3]. The author is a three-time [4] contributor to Linux Gazette and his most recent contribution was on the same topic. [5]. He frequently blogs about the topic, too. [6] To be notable, I think we'd need one more source that's a little better. --Pnm (talk) 04:14, 2 December 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.