Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien (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   keep. Courcelles 16:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Alien (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails even basic test of notability. No references - could have been a speedy but it has been around for a while.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  All I could find were blog posts discussing this utility, no reliable sources.  Keep. I accept the Linux Journal article found by Mark viking, when taken in combination with the numerous minor mentions found by Joy, as sufficient to establish notability.  Msnicki (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's verifiable (see the man page under external links), useful, and GPL licensed. It may not be the most notable piece of software, as it fills a niche role, but it performs its stated function admirably. Although the software may not at present meet a strict reading of the notability guidelines, I do not believe the encyclopedia will be improved by deleting the article. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 10:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Did you find any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability?  I didn't think so.  Msnicki (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that page, thanks. As far as notability, I thought I made my position clear? Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're aware that's an argument to avoid, I don't know why you would make it. As for your position on notability, what is it, that it's not?  Msnicki (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting from that page, "it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay". As for notability, I've already given my views on this. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 10:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That seemed to be the whole argument. Msnicki (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge where appropriate, it's a rather standard Linux tool, can be easily referenced using some of those books at http://www.google.com/search?q=alien+rpm&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - This utility gets quite a few mentions in | books on Linux use/administration. Not sure if these are sufficient for notability though.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a modest Linux Journal article on the software and it pops up on commercial howto sites like How-To Geek. Debian uses it to help improve conformance to the Linux Standard Base. The Linux Documentation Project has an entry for the software. Joy and Grandmartin11 have shown that there are thousands of GBook hits for the software. Between the LJ article, which I consider marginally in depth, some shorter articles on commercial howto sites and thousands of citations in books, I consider the software notable. In my opinion, in judging notability WP:GNG allows for many small references in RS like books to substitute for an in-depth one: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. There seems to be enough secondary material out there to support a modest article. With a notable topic and no major problems in the article, I recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.