Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXodus


 * 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. However if anyone is able to confirm that enough of the print/unavailable sources are in-depth reliable sources, such that the article would pass GNG, come to my talk page and link this AfD and I'll restore. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

EXodus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unsourced stub article created in 2008 with 29 edits since. --  Alex TW 02:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several news in published magazines, but I was not able to find any review. Sources I found so far:
 * News about version 1.0 (half page)
 * Short news about version 2.0 (1/8 page)
 * Short news about version 3.0 (1/5 page)
 * Short news about version 5.0 (1/5 page)
 * News about remote access add-on eXodus eXpress (short news only)
 * News about remote access add-on eXodus eXpress (short news only, cca same as above)
 * Mention only - reference for market share of various X-servers
 * One page, mentions features of version 7.0 and newer Pavlor (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: some comments now sources have been found - are they good enough?
 * Delete The general notability guideline asks for coverage that is independent, significant, and in reliable sources. After having verified the list of references above, many entries have problems with the "significance" prong of that test (as implied by the multiple notes of "short").  Of these, only Marshall (1989) meets the GNG criteria. Marshall (1990), Busse (1991), Welch (1993), InfoWorld staff (1994), and MacWorld staff (1994) are all not significant, being little more than mere product update announcements. InfoWorld staff (1996) is not even that - just a passing mention of the software company. I was not able to verify Rizzo (1999), but 's description of it as a one page mention does not fill me with hope.  One significant WP:RS does not meet WP:GNG and there is no applicable WP:SNG that would apply.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dysklyver  23:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply to 's relisting comment - there seems to have been a sort of edit conflict -- see the requested evaluation of sources in the !vote immediately prior to the relist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:36, 27 October 2017 (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.