Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedi


 * 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  -- Samir 07:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comedi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An open software project of unknown notability. - Altenmann >t 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This software interface is covered in a 2004 article in the Linux Journal, which is apparently a technology magazine within the community of Linux proponents. In any case, I believe the article (here) counts as significant coverage in a secondary source, and that this software interface is thus notable enough for inclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, only that source in 2004 and nothing more in five years is not significant coverage.  Anna Lincoln  21:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * average just another open-sores project. it can get profiled in a dozen magazines, nothing says why this is an exceptional, and therefore encyclopedic topic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - The effort required to create a piece of software can be significantly less than writing a novel; we should be routinely treatings software with the suspicion we give to self-published books. Here, the software (a) makes no claim of notability capable of demonstrating it as being other than run of the mill, and (b) provides insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes no claim of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:58, 18 November 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.