Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FRET (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. Editors have removed promotional wording and improved sourcing, any further discussions can take place on talk pages. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FRET (Software)

[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)

Subject may be notable (appears in the NASA software catalog) but the article is so promotional in tone it would be better to blow it up and start over. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, this needs attention of someone familiar with the verification domain. If all available coverage is non-independent, and there's no evidence of secondary coverage, there's ultimately a question of whether sources that allow writing an article about the project exist, regardless of the project's importance. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we 'blow up' the article and re create it when we can just rewrite it, promotional tone can be fixed and is not too serious of a problem. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree with Sangsangaplaz. The cure for poor writing is a rewrite, not a deletion. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. "blowing up" is not a valid response to promotional tone and not an appropriate use of AfD. @Pear1020: did you conduct any WP:BEFORE analysis? I understand the concerns about the state of the article but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 14:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: I did, but from my perspective it seemed to need a fundamental rewrite, then I tagged it for speedy deletion, which was declined by an admin who recommended sending the article to AfD for community input on whether or not to keep it . Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental rewrite doesn't necessarily mean that it should be deleted. AFD is only for discussing whether an article's subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, with the intention of removing the article from public view indefinitely if the conclusion is delete. If you wan't to rewrite it, you can just type the new version up in a user subpage or text editor, then replace the article's contents with the new version. Liu1126 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to piggyback on this and say that the effort for a re-write isn't even required. You can challenge and remove content yourself, and start a discussion on the talk page and flag ({{ping}}) the page writer with your concerns. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what will happen with page next? مکرم (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all content that I felt was promotional. And added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukarram0126 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since its nomination thus a second look would be advisable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete "Nomination for deletion" template from top of the article? Mukarram (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is still in progress. The closing admin will remove the template when closing if needed. Liu1126 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Mukarram (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The nomination was flawed in the first place. As my colleagues above have noted nom failed to state a criterion for deletion. The sources in the article, which include two scholarly papers, are sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Perhaps they weren't in there at nomination time? No matter, this is a failure of BEFORE. Central and Adams (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the article should remain available on Wikipedia for everyone. Mukarram (talk) 01:28, 7 December 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.