Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderlust (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 and then redirect to Emacs. Consensus to delete but with no objection to redirect the article title. So Why 17:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlust (software)

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage. I'm not counting the emacs wiki and blog as independent. I found a one-line mention in a book [1] with a screen shot, which doesn't seem to justify a separate Wikipedia article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various modes of emacs for email (rmail, vm, wanderlust) should be discussed at the article on emacs. Independent notability of these is questionable. Rmail gets most coverage, because most emacs books are rather old. [2] [3]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turns up hundreds of articles and mentions about it just in English; in addition, it has a great deal of popularity among Japanese-speaking users. The article could certainly use a bit of expansion, but not deletion. The emacs wiki has no relation to Wanderlust (which does not ship with Emacs); it just provides information about it. The blog and the hundreds of other articles about Wanderlust certainly count as independent. Keep. --Josh Triplett (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the emacs wiki is a directory of all the emacs modes. It is simply part of the emacs documentation. If we accept that wiki as a source of notability, we'd have to create a Wikipedia article for every emacs mode, for instance AnyIniMode. See WP:EVERYTHING. Can you point out something that is considered independent as well as reliable according to the Wikipedia rules? Blogs are excluded unless they have been written by a previously published expert; see WP:SPS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to suggest that the emacs wiki counted as notable, just independent. Also, I don't intend to suggest that any random Emacs mode necessarily needs a Wikipedia article; in this case, the mode in question effectively counts as an application (a mail reader) that happens to run inside Emacs, which seems distinct from the case of a mode for editing a particular type of file. As for the type of sources, I doubt you'll find Wanderlust written about in a printed book (as with most modern software, for which the web works as a far better substitute), and certainly not if you expect more than just a mention. I can trivially find a large number of pages written about Wanderlust (just by searching for "wanderlust mail", without the quotes) that have nothing to do with the author; I don't plan to go through all of those to find one that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. (I'd argue that "preponderance of the evidence" ought to apply here, personally.) If that makes Wanderlust non-notable, feel free to go ahead and merge it into Emacs. --Josh Triplett (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (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) 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the Notability policy of WP, but this article is certainly rather sparse. I'd like to see the article expanded, but if it is to be deleted, could it possibly be replaced with a redirect to the relevant section of the Emacs page, and the (meagre) contents moved there? Ketil (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the emacs article arleady says just about the same thing as this one, except for the infobox. I don't think it's practical to add infoboxes for all the emacs mode versions there, but a table might work. As for the sources noted by Josh above, they are similar in nature to those for SFML, which was deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple and Fast Multimedia Library (2nd nomination). FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (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.