Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic software


 * 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. --Core des at 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic software
Non-notable article discussing a neologism. Justin Eiler 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. eaolson 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin, what do you not like about this article? -author


 * Greetings, William. "Liking" has nothing to do with my decision to nominate the article--I actually do like the articles. My only reasons for nominating the article for a deletion discussion have to do with Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability. As it stands, the article does not make clear why the topic is notable. Additionally, since you are the owner of one of the websites under discussionin the article, there is some question as to whether or not the articles fall under the guidelines for vanity articles or spam. Justin Eiler 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please read the relevant notability guidelines for neologisms. MER-C 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not a neologism.  that would be ethnoware.   this article is a concept, which seems to be gaining some acceptance, 1200 hits in google.  oh and btw, articles are not supposed to talk about their notability, they are supposed to establish it.  --Buridan 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually the WP:NEO page says that a neologism can be a phrase, not just a word. I get 288 Google hits, many of which are link farms. eaolson 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment. the hits that i get that aren't farms are sites like rhyzome, washington university saint louis, kanonmedia, all fairly well respected artists.   to me.. it comes down to this.  if the category exists as a concept and is used in an academic field like this one seems to be, is it better to cleanup the article and have it as a stub, removing the advertising from it, so that people can look up an authoritative meaning in wikipedia, or is it better to vacate the conceptual territory and let the advertisers have it?--Buridan 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per WP:COI Jpe|ob 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. EVula 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This represents a notable conflict, which needs citations. There are sufficient academic citations of this and related concepts to establish the notability and encyclopedic quality of the article.  It just needs improved.  I suspect that if you delete this article, it will be only a matter of weeks or months before someone comes along and makes a new one, so keep it.--Buridan 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. My biggest objection to this article (I proded before it was deproded and AfDed) is that the use of the term "ethnic software" to describe a particular subset of application software was neither sourced nor well-defined. Shribmashinke's software appears to be titled Ethnic software, but doesn't use the term to describe it. Digital Griot doesn't use the term on its own webpage, and I can't find anything linking the two in Google. No hits in Google Scholar. This is an interesting and probably useful extension of software, but the use of the phrase in this generic way appears to be fairly new. eaolson 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * wierd, i got one hit from google scholar, the electronic disturbance theater, though i didn't verify it. keep in mind that the texts that terms like this originate in, in the academic universe, might not be the texts that end up in google scholar because small publishers don't participate.  a regular google search actually turns up several more academics and artists in this area. i see the problem between the advert and the concept.  it would be nice to expunge the advert and keep the concept. --Buridan 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Software doesn't have ethnicity. I expect to see Islamic software one day. Pavel Vozenilek 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * actually, software does have an ethnicity, or at least a cultural specificity. there is plenty of evidence in chi/hci specifically in the anthropology of software that shows that.--Buridan 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that's important aspect though 'ethnicity' sounds strange here (culture or cultural context got used, e.g. ). The article however does't touch this, it is list of of some SW. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Change vote to abstain: Though I'm the editor who opened this discussion, User:Williammurrell has taken steps to make this a discussion of the concept of "ethnic software," rather than an advertisment for his website. As such, while I am still unsure if the discussion is notable, I will note that it no longer falls under spam or Conflict of interest. Justin Eiler 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but needs major cleanup and better sourcing of the concept, not just examples. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- neologism for a nebulously defined subcategory of (mostly) reference software. Haikupoet 04:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO. utcursch | talk 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO requires secondary sources about the term before we include articles on neologism.  Until we have reliable sources that discuss "ethnic software" as a concept, we can't have an article on the concept.  GRBerry 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEOlogism guidelines,  Tewfik Talk 07:06, 26 October 2006 (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.