Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DistrictBuilder


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DistrictBuilder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant promotion bombarded with passing mentions, non mentions and faked verification. Random refs thrown in to verify related aspects that are not specifically about this software. Deceptive article from paid promoters. This software lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the awards are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep - The Washington Post article mentioned in the lead gives a good mention of DistrictBuilder in the context of it being a notable method for citizen groups to try redistricting. It's only a single mention, but the context provides weight, IMO.  That's one RS... I usually require two.  The reference "Mason Political Scientist McDonald Wins Award for Redistricting Software" would be my second, except the link is dead and the wayback machine doesn't have it.  If the content of that reference is what our article claims it to be, then that is plenty sufficient to merit keeping.  I do note that a large number of other references are tagged that they don't actually back up the claims made in our article... so, I'll grant that this is not a necessary given.
 * IFF someone can find this dead link, and it checks out, or if another source for the award can be found, this is a Keep vote. Otherwise, mark me down as ambivalent.  All the "statement not supported by reference" tags is certainly troubling, after all.  But AfD is not cleanup, so... Fieari (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mason ref is primary, comes from one of the developers employer. Article itself is available here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, the article is primary... but is the award self given (a vanity award)? More importantly, is the award NOTABLE?  If the award is notable, then that in addition to the Washington Post reference would be sufficient for me to make this a firm keep.  I'm not certain it is notable, and my google news searches on the award are giving me results that I'm not 100% certain are actually related.  Do you know anything about the award? Fieari (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Best I can see, it's an award from an individual convention. Register and pay, you are in line for an award. Small pool, small audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Softwares tend to have some of the best coverage available and here it clearly doesn't satisfy. This Washington Post coverage is very brief, like 2 -3 sentences and I don't see enough depth over here. Neither do I see any other reliable third party sources covering it. Wikipedia is a not a directory of all software and this is pretty much a non-notable one. This doesn't pass GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2016 (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.