Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo (software)[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product: fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFTWARE. Contested PROD was explained on the talk page. The few relevant hits from a Google search appear to be self-published. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look more closely into WP:PRODUCT and WP:SOFTWARE later -- and argue them one by one, but would just point out that a slightly more intelligent Google search shows a different picture. This just shows that any Wikipedia debate can be skewed by manipulated Google stats. The article in question is put in the category Category:Content_management_systems; I can throw a dart and pick 10 random articles in this category that is LESS NOTABLE than Hugo. --Bep (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bep: Yes, but that argument just amounts to the fact that other stuff exists. And the sources in the search you give still aren't enough to establish notability. Coverage by WP:BLOGS isn't the same as coverage by independent, reliable sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because you have a page named WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't invalidate my argument. Branding Hugo with the WP:BLOGS label is an insult to the people who have spent thousands of hours creating a software that is used by thousands of people. I have thousands of edits on Wikipedia, and I understand how it works. I will respect the conclusion in this thread, as I will try to improve on the article to address some of the concerns. But if this article is delete, I will use this new set standard to review all the current software articles -- and label them with the correct "suggest a delete" template. A merry new year to you all! --Bep (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. PRODUCT and SOFTWARE are guidelines only, and defer to GNG. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or GTFO. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. (alternatively, merge somewhere if someone can find a non-list merge target.) Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. -- Calidum 05:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the number of forks on GitHub is alone enough eveidence for notability. See https://www.staticgen.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bep (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 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.