Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropy

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. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Tone 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropy[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)

Quite entirely lacking in independent coverage; all sources are in-house or directly connected with the project. Considering the thing was released just a year ago, it's not that surprising. I suggest this falls at the WP:TOOSOON hurdle until and unless there is some wider uptake and/or coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the organization that is developing the software, Center for History and New Media. _signed,Rosguill^talk 17:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from subtopic}} to Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media where I have added a mention. Subject currently does not meet the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) or the general notability guideline. Sam Sailor 07:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (Amended. Sam Sailor 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep after reviewing the sources added by David Tornheim. Sam Sailor 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see multiple independent articles on it: [1],[2],[3]. Hence, meets WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the links provided by David Tornheim show that this tool meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, I'm not persuaded by the refs noted here however it isn't a delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more opinions on the sources provided by David Tornheim would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 7 October 2018 (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.