Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver/2006-07-12


 * 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. Proto :: type  10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bitweaver
The Bitweaver article stinks like an advertisement, but probably isn't. It needs more information to give base to the article claims, citations for some of the more debatable things or it should simply be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:SPAM per nom. Alphachimp  talk  23:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bitweaver is an open source project maintained by volunteers. I don't see how information about such a project can be considered as SPAM.  Our company uses bitweaver on the corporate internet, so I'm not associated to the project other than as an end user.  I would like to see this article maintained.  If you have a problem with it, make more specific suggestions as to what should be cleaned up. -- 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.86.254 (talk • contribs)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice talk 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability (software) states that a software application is sufficiently notable if "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine." (Although WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, the above requirement is essentially identical to the general requirements set forth in the Notability essay and official policies such as WP:CORP and WP:WEB.) If anyone can provide links to said third-party coverage, please do so here and in the article.  Else, subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article.  --Satori Son 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup required. It's prominent enough to have received a Secunia vulnerability warning which appears in the first page of Google results. Paddles TC 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Was mentioned in interview with RedHat and Lulu founder Bob Young in newsforge interview - search for Tiki (was around the time product was renamed. Also bitweaver listed in links page. --spiderr 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: To user spiderr; I noticed that every single one of your edits have involved Bitweaver.  There is certainly nothing wrong with that, and we appreciate your contributions, but would you mind disclosing if you have a relationship with the company?  Thank you.  --Satori Son 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be better off asking on spiderr's talk page, if you haven't already, as we don't know whether spiderr is continuing to monitor the AfD discussion. Paddles TC 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed since spiderr went back and manually edited his/her signature so that it no longer linked back to the user page that he/she did not wish to be contacted via his/her talk page. Plus, I think it's best if any possible bias is disclosed here in this debate.  Thanks for your suggestion, though. --Satori Son 04:30, 23 July 2006 (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.


 * Keep Per discussion, notability, copyright and "spaminess" issues have been addressed. It appears the page is now in auto delete? We do want to make an earnest contribution Please advise on how we can move forward.--Spiderr 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)