Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygine

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. Based upon the strengths of the arguments herein relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, the result is to delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygine

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

No evidence of notability SpinningSpark 18:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to quote WP:NSOFTWARE (which is not a guideline, but an overview which tries to measure software's notability threshold): "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." I can't find its claim to significance, even with the looser standard; all the sources I've come across appear to be written by the author ([1] [2]), with nominal genuine, independent coverage. Seattle (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Author of Oxygine, Dont Delete, I think Github could be a good way to measure notability: [3] - check number of stars, forks, created list of issues/topics. There is also Oxygine forum where you could check users activity: [4]. Here is list of sources with ref to Oxygine written not by me: [5], [6], [7], [8],[9]. Also I receive emails with thanks from people who found Oxygine very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankinshtein (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, forums and listings are not evidence of notability, which is the principle requirement on Wikipedia for a subject to have an article. SpinningSpark 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C++.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if the C++ article discussed Oxygine, but it doesn't and it would probably be WP:UNDUE to merge it in there. SpinningSpark 09:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability; I could not find a single outside source. Also reads a little like an advertisement. Piboy51 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2015 (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.