Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zathura (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zathura (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software, even the author of the software says that there are no reliable sources that have written about it. Deleted as spam, then restored, still no evidence of why it is notable and the author's comments on the talkpage consist of personal attacks and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Terrillja _talk 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a side note I cannot see any personal attacks and the author seem to have a long history with wikipedia (more than 3000 contributions). The software though is in preliminary stage and probable not qualify for an article yet. Pxtreme75 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator, The member Terrillja nominating the article for deletion has been out for this article since its very inception, first he added delete due to notability/references and demanded notability by world reknown dead-tree magazines such as PC-world on the talk page. However it is highly unlikely that it would be written about by journalist of big media as the application lacks the required audience to be profitable to publish in a dead-tree magazine simply because is it a Linux application. I believe that the application has gained a high enough notability by the communities of people which uses a Linux distribution that has a 'keep it simple' philosophy such as Archlinux, Slackware, etc. to validate for an article on wikipedia. I added third party references which shows that the application has indeed been noticed by people in the Linux communities and removed the delete request due to lack of notability/reference. However Terrillja was not satisfied and added a delete due to spam tag. The article is still in its very inception(I am slow) and at the time of deletion the article had two sentences, of which one was entirely factual and the other was factual but written in an advertising fashion. One administrator saw fit to delete the whole article rather than correct the erroneous wording of the sentence and I appealed to other administrator. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took it here because I still think that it's non-notable software. When it was deleted as spam, it was clearly advertising and POV material. It doesn't have to be long to be spam. For example, an article that states that John Doe is the best runner that has ever lived and has won every race he ever entered is spam. You're taking this as some sort of attack on you. It's nothing against you, but you chose a poor subject to write about. As for references, you have chosen one listing on Linux and another that is in violation of WP:ELNO, as a commercial download site. As you can see, the sources have hardly alleviated my concerns.--Terrillja _talk 14:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is lacking reliables sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (although likely Delete based on what I can gather so far) - I would like to conclude that Zathura is also notable but so far, I don't see evidence for that. Quote from the forum topic: "Notabilitity", such a ridiculus policy!, if that is your view, why attack those who understand and follow the policy? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all information out there. Your argument on Evince doesn't hold because Evince gains notability due to being part of the GNOME project and inclusion in well-known Linux distributions such as Ubuntu. - Simeon (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 10 July 2010 (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.