Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augean 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 , it's snowing. No indications from anyone besides the creator that it's notable. Star Mississippi 22:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean software[edit]

[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)

Contested PROD - doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean is a notable piece of genealogy software, as it is the only desktop genealogy software designed to help persons with vision problems. Most other genealogy software listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software have wiki pages, Augean is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software, but has the additional advantage of being the only vision accessible desktop genealogical program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to clearly fail WP:NSOFT. I see zero secondary coverage. Danstronger (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augean doesn't have a lot of web coverage it is a new piece of software, designed to help persons with vision problems what is the reason, why it is flagged as WP:NSOFT ? Does the article need improvement? the article follows the same format as other geological software wiki's see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software how is it inferior, or different from the other genealogical software wikis? Yes, Augean is new, but it is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software that has wiki's what is it, that they are doing right, that we are doing wrong? Please advise, thanks.Francis1864 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864: At a glance, it appears to me that many of the programs listed at Comparison_of_genealogy_software do not meet NSOFT and they should be deleted too. Danstronger (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly two decades genealogists have listed their software on Wikipedia, without any problems
Please see [[1]]
When Augean releases a free vision accessible piece of software, designed to help those with low vision there is an immediate call to delete the Wiki.
Augean is feature equivalent to the other software, the only difference is that it is free, and was specifically designed to help those with vision problems. (please refer to the comparison chart at the above link).
Augean should not be treated differently on the basis that it is a free piece of software, designed to help persons with disabilities.
Please be formally advised, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate based on disability. Please see [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised you on your apparent conflict of interest on your talkpage. Please understand that no publication, including WIkipedia, is obligated to provide free publicity for a product under the ADA. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the above sounds a bit direct, but it has always been my experience, that persons with vision problems have to fight for their rights. Sometimes, people forget what it is like not to have good vision
I just don't understand what is the problem, in trying to help persons with low vision Obviously, I need to list my software, the same as all other genealogy software providers did (for the last 2 decades). I was very careful to use the exact same format.
Please, consider the needs of persons with vision problems, Please, thanks !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software, no reliable third party coverage. Also promotional self-admittedly created by software's creator (though this is actually incidental to the fact the software is not notable and doesn't have reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV.) We are not a software listing or directory service, we're an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is the last stop on the notability train, not the first. Also article is just a product brochure and not an encyclopedic entry. Slywriter (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other genealogy tool makers listed their software, and did so for nearly 20 years, with no objection from WikiPedia
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software
Augean, which is a free visually accessible software designed to help persons with disabilities, lists the software and suddenly Wikipedia treats Augean differently than you did the other genealogy software makers.
I listed the software in the same format as the other tool makers.
I feel this is grounds for claiming discrimination, and the American disabilities act would provide protection.
Also Augean is not treating Wikipedia as the first stop on the train, but previously exhibited at Roots Tech in 2021 https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/rtc2021/speakers/augean/en
I will gladly revise the wiki if you can provide an example of what it should look like
thanks
Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis1864, the argument you've repeatedly put forward has a shortcut, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Do you need me to clarify the low opinion generally held for this line of argument? Also, your use of HTML rather than Wiki syntax is screwing up this page.Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that other crap exists, as you put it, but that in the USA it is illegal to treat people differently based on disabilities.
For 20 years, other genealogy programs were listed, without any objection from Wikipedia. But, a genealogy program designed to help persons with vision problems, as been flagged for following the same format as the other programs did.
There is no need, to start insulting the other vendors, or their content.
But, I would ask Wikipedia editors to respect persons with vision problems and those that try to help them.
I will remind you again, and the other editors, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate against persons based on a disability.Francis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864:, we are not discriminating against people with disabilities because our standards for the notability of topics are the same whether or not the author of the page is disabled. If you had no disabilities and created a page about this software, it would still be nominated for deletion. Passenger pigeon (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to not bring up anything about legal matters. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For 20 years, Wikipedia had no objection to the other genealogy vendors listing their tools.
They only get upset when a genealogy program to help persons with vision problems is listed.
This seems a very clear-cut case of discrimination to me. I followed the exact same format as the others.
The above behavior is illegal in the USAFrancis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messing up the AFD page, learn to indent properly & sign your posts properly. PS - I'm seeing a WP:CIR situation, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis1864, please read our manual of style for accessibility. Since you appear to deeply care about the rights of visually impaired individuals, you may be interested to find that there are several tags you're using are likely to break this page for people using screen readers. Even for someone like me who isn't using a screen reader, the formatting makes it harder to read. Would you be willing to please properly indent your edits going forward? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NSOFTWARE and GNG with no secondary coverage JW 1961^Talk 22:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no non-trivial coverage of this software in reliable sources; as such it does not meet the notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search turns up irrelevant companies and nothing about this software specifically (string: "augean software"). The argument advanced by Francis1864 is at best hypocritical given their obvious disregard for screen-reader software and at worst an attempt at legal thuggery worthy of a block in and of itself, on top of being absurd on its face. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. — Czello 08:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably the creator is confused. Wikipedia is not a place to "list" your own software as a form of promotion. Wikipedia has articles on topics (including software) that are already notable, and are written about by third party sources. I can't find any third party sources about this piece of software. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2021 (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.