Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executor (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 keep. no arguments for deletion aside the nom JForget 00:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executor (software)

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

While the Wine compatibility layer is notable, this Macintosh compatibility layer, while being a desperately needed idea in the Linux and Windows community isn't notable due to all sources linking to the company webpage. Nilocia (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the reference linking to a CNN article about Executor, located here. Bumm13 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are the article author, thanks for pointing out the CNN reference, but one reference from a notable source is not enough to make up for the rest of the sources that are straight from the company website. Nilocia (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nilocia, you also seem to have missed two additional independent sources in the external links. I've integrated them into the main article, which makes multiple (3) independent secondary sources. (The Mini vMac FAQ is just a passing reference.) This establishes the presumption of notability as per the general notability guidelines. Using the guidelines, this leaves two questions remain about the proposed deletion:

are these reliable sources?
are there any reasons why the article isn't appropriate for a stand-alone article (by community consensus), even with the sources?

twilsonb (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article from heise Magazine in the first page of a google search for executor mac emulator. I've integrated it in the article as well. twilsonb (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient multiple RS to establish notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just in case it isn't obvious) per my entries above, pending good reasons why the article isn't appropriate for a stand-alone article. twilsonb (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anecdotal, but I recall using Executor in the 1990s and at the time I got the impression it was the only way to really do what it does. Anyone that wanted to use Mac software on their PC had to use Executor. Dpaanlka (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And it still compiles and runs today, and is the only way you can run some M68K software on an Intel Mac under OS X, FWIW, but that's not why it's notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 3 September 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.