Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BibCiter


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BibCiter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Joe,

I've added more info on BibCiter, which you tagged for deletion. I agree it's not a very famous tool, but it does add to help the end user to chose, specially when being added to the Comparison of reference management software.

I've had this discussions about deletion before, in the English Wikipedia as in other languages, and my argument always is that it is more difficult to create an article than to add information to it little by little. In other words, I think it's worth keeping presumably trivial articles than to delete them, as they act as a seed that's to grow.

A good example of this can be found with the Doc Searls article, which I created, was tagged for deletion, and now it's a good article.

Ictlogist (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can always work on the article in your userspace. It can even be moved there if it is deleted. It needs citations to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The only coverage of this software I can find outside its own web pages is a few warnings about security vulnerabilities. Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a useful tool, but has not received significant coverage. Also, most of the gHits are for a vulnerability. See --Odie5533 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: seems like a well written article but still un-notable. South Bay (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (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.