Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardpeek


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cardpeek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The included sources seem to be of dubious reliability (wikis, forums, and blogs lacking independent editorial oversight, sites associated with the subject, and a primary source in the form of a conference report), and there is no assertion of the significance of this piece of software. The subject may in fact be worthy of an article, but there is no evidence of that at present. —Swpbtalk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Swpbtalk 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * delete lacks reliable third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a rather strong keep. Here is a profile of the main author. He is a researcher who has worked for several official smart card authorities in Europe. The project site may be a wiki, but it is actually a managed project. You have to be a member of the project to contribute. Not the same thing as a wiki that the general public can edit. There is an academic paper that describes it as 1 of 3 available tools for reading smart cards (the authors are interested in it for research purposes). It is available for 3 Linux distributions, and for each of these the documentation of the package is a reliable 3rd-party source. This is not the kind of software that would receive coverage in general media, but it is easily verifiable as being what it says it is. I think we should make allowances for the way that open source developers collaborate. I don't see any particular reason why it should be deleted. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The project wiki may be managed, but as a primary source, it's utterly not relevant to establishing notability. As for your comment that "I don't see any particular reason why it should be deleted", you need to understand that the burden of proof in deletion discussions is to show reason for the article to be kept, and the scarcity of WP:RS coverage for this software makes that a weak case. —Swpbtalk 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but I was concerned about a couple of statements in the PROD. The two academic papers are not primary sources, they are secondary because the authors are not connected to the project. About the wiki, I'm not claiming that it esablishes notability, only that as a managed project it is reliable. About the requirement to see it covered in newspapers or general media, given the level of technical sophistication in editorial departments, editorial oversight doesn't get you much in term of reliability. Mistakes are rampant. What it does show is notability, namely that people want to know about it. The lack of coverage there simply shows that the general public doesn't care.
 * So who does care? This page is averaging 20 views a day. Perhaps coming from the links in EMV and Tachograph. They might be security researchers, like the authors of the first paper. Or researchers or individuals interested in privacy, like authors of the second paper. My first question was whether this software was legal. But apparently it is, so it looks like a legitimate tool for people to find out what information is being collected about them. That's the audience we would be cutting off if we deleted the article, so I'm concerned about that. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lots of references, but none of them are the WP:RS we need to establish notability.  Blogs, package repos, etc don't add up just because there's lots of them.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -I have to say that I agree that there are several mentions but very few of them lead up to building what we expect as proper nobility for an article.--Canyouhearmenow 12:49, 8 December 2014 (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.