Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Display Monkey


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Display Monkey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to have met WP:GNG. Doesn't come close to WP:NSOFT (an essay). Should be deleted I guess.. — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   11:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — ☮  JAaron95  Talk   11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — ☮  JAaron95  Talk   11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Proposed for deletion with the rationale "Searches for sources indicate that subject may not meet the inclusion criteria in Notability (software) or the general notability guideline." Article creator has WP:CONTESTED the Prod, but sourcing issues remain unchanged, and I find nothing that suggests this can be adequately ameliorated. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call Sam! Why confuse people with fringe articles like this one. The volume of articles written about Microsoft, Google and other notable software should provide more than adequate levels of knowledge. This and simliar articles just slows people down and provides alternatives that I, quite frankly, do not think the are ready for. Yes the article is neutral and objective but is it notable? I think not. On another note, is there anything else we can do to discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia other than this drawn out and inefficent deletion process? Maybe we can maintain a list of approved softwares that can be written about and submission not on the list can simply not be made. Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKGMalmgren (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: MKGMalmgren (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Not really, to me merely a sarcastic rant. But yes, in this case the deletion process could have been shortened had article creator not contested the PROD, and it still can be shortened: article creator is the only editor with substantial contributions to the article and he could add to the top of it. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Userify. My only problem here is just a lack of third-party sources. A website and Github entry just aren't going to show notability here. Now this isn't to say I endorse the sentiments in WP:NSOFT or essays like it, which in the hands of deletionists exclude most software that is not the subject of scholarly computer science work or part of a history book. I think most editors merely ask that the software be written about by independent third parties in a reasonably objective way such that Wikipedia doesn't turn into CNet (WP:NOTADIR).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Question what is the rationale for Userfication? None is given above. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience, I have noticed that many regard the various criteria (notability mostly) as some sort of platonic quality -- a universal that a topic either does or does not participate in. This almost never seems to be the case. Articles that virtually everyone (myself included) wanted gone have been turned around at the last minute by dedicated editors who go after sources. While it should never be necessary in a world in which anyone does WP:BEFORE, I've taken a few moments to search for sources for several articles under threat of deletion, and while it won't save them all, it will help some. With the state of the software guidelines/essays, the tendency of editors to AfD within moments of article creation, and the sidelining of WP:NODEADLINE, I think giving a user time to work on something is beneficial, especially considering this editor got a whopping 19 minutes to work on his article before it got nuked from orbit.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfication is a possibility when an article has potential. That is not the case here. Created by the company co-founder Michael Malmgren it's yet another attempt to promote a new product. Prove me wrong, add a single reliable source that speaks in detail about this product. I'm all for retaining articles if they are neutral and subject just accurately meets GNG. Display Monkey does not, and is the archetypical example of a product "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and would be an A7 candidate if software was not excluded from the criteria. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There must be a dimension of this request that I'm not aware of then, and I'm not looking to wade into an existing quarrel. None of what you're talking about was obvious from a visit to the site or a web search, but I have no reason to disbelieve what you say. However, with open-source(ish) software, as with all things, we should try to assume good faith (WP:AGF). The one thing I have learned in a short time in AfD is that there is generally no evidence short of a mention in Gibbon's Rise and Fall that's going to save an article folks want gone, so I'll forego the researches I've tried in the past. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So much more peculiar it is that userfication is suggested. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - nothing to show it passes the notability criteria in any of the searches. Sam Sailor's analysis is spot on for why it shouldn't be userfied.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:16, 16 October 2015 (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.