Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TigerWiki
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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TigerWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Discontinued Non-notable software; references consist of non-reliable sources Dandv (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could you explain your WP:N assertation in more detail, in particular as the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline is "inactive", which is suggestive of highly contested ground. Personally, I'm of the opinion that neutral, factual and concise articles on OpenSource software have a place on Wikipedia (mainly as per WP:NOTPAPER), regardless if discontinued or not. I'm noting that the article has a claim of notability (the fork softwares). There also seem to some snippets [1] p282, and [2]. I'm no subject matter expert myself, but your user page profile intrigues me, and I'm looking forward to your reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Active and much larger FOSS wiki software projects, like Foswiki and MojoMojo, were not deemed notable, and many editors voted for their deletion (where are these editors now, one wonders). In order to avoid a double-standard, I joined the effort of deleting Wikipedia articles of free open-source software. However, I actually am of the opinion that existing FOSS with a significant user base deserves a page on Wikipedia and started a mailing list thread on that (which unfortunately generated almost no interest). As such, I marked for deletion only abandoned wiki software.
- thanks for your reply. I see Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge, with the five pillars, and the two fundamental policies WP:V and WP:SOURCES. I understand that some people use Wikipedia as a software knowledge references works (factual, concise, no spam, etc). I would say it's an absolute legit purpose, and so it pains me to see articles deleted on notability issues, that I consider inherently subjective. This personal opinion aside, the notability discussion is "stuck", as was pointed out at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. best Power.corrupts (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Active and much larger FOSS wiki software projects, like Foswiki and MojoMojo, were not deemed notable, and many editors voted for their deletion (where are these editors now, one wonders). In order to avoid a double-standard, I joined the effort of deleting Wikipedia articles of free open-source software. However, I actually am of the opinion that existing FOSS with a significant user base deserves a page on Wikipedia and started a mailing list thread on that (which unfortunately generated almost no interest). As such, I marked for deletion only abandoned wiki software.
- Delete. Abandoned open-source development projects are a dime a dozen. No indication of third-party verifiability. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw. I've added the www2008 conference reference suggested by Power.corrupts and wish to cancel my AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 10:10, April 3, 2009
- 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.