Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arduino IDE


 * 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 no consensus. It's clear that a straight-up delete isn't happening, and that's really all AFD needs to decide. If people want to do a merge/redirect, that conversation can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Arduino IDE

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of notability. Sources are self-published with no in-depth coverage. Nreatian (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

*Keep - Somone did not bother to do a book search before nominating this. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly the nominator has no idea about Arduino and its IDE. - Coriannakox (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC) (Creator of the article)
 * Speedy keep: I actually have this installed.   // Timothy ::  talk  17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: My main concern here is the WP:CFORK thats going on with Arduino and question how nom's WP:BEFORE did not pick that up or mention it here. Oh .. I notice on article talk page this has copied content from the original Arduino article without really following Copying within Wikipedia.  ( Unbelievably checking Inchicore railway works last night I realized I had plagiarized the the initial version of that myself without fully giving prescribed attribution and was back fixing that).Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft delete or redirect or possibly keep.  If kept the content fork with Arduino must be resolved, attributions properly given possibly content copied from Arduino.  A soft delete appropriate as the IDE may become WP:DUE in the Arduino article (it isn't currently) and because its a different sort of entity in its own category and a sustainable article in its own right is I believe possibly.  Using a redirect (to section with with possibilies and categories) isn't really necessary for locating the main article from search but it is useful for categories.  Choices are really about how the content fork is handled. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect is probably the cleanest way to resolve this. A WP:SPLIT at this time does not appear to be needed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is plenty of sourcing to have a large Arduino article along with a large Arduino IDE article. "Arduino" by itself is a word referring to the open source movement, the board, the IDE, the foundation etc. Many articles have been written on using the software (i.e. the Arduino IDE). Regarding naming, Arduino (software) might be an alternative to the current naming. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd expect Arduino (software) to refer to software that runs on the Arduino. The Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is not part of that but runs on a separate host (AFAIK).  Thus I contend it would be in inappropriate to rename the current article to Arduino (software).  I am minded it would be possible to reframe the article into Arduino (software) and have the IDE has a section in that, but that is not where we are at.  In all events if !voting keep please identify who will be taking responsibility for resolving the content fork (I should have made it clear I am not volunteering to do that).  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with Arduino (software). That's what the IDE has always been called by the "official" developers. You are correct that the IDE runs on a separate host; it produces RISC processor code that runs on tiny processors, which is not in itself anything specific to "Arduino" (except for the bootloader, I guess.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that. But unless someone indicates they plan to expand the current article and resolve the content fork it would be better closed as a redirect or perhaps even a soft delete.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: If there is a consensus on a merge/rename I'd support that; I'm simply against a delete or redirect w/o merge.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:25, 6 September 2020 (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.