Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FluidVM


 * 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. I was able to dig up this news article which mentions it, but unfortunately, there still isn't enough notability. There are nothing but passing mentions. Maybe some day in the future. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  04:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FluidVM

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Checking Google & GNews, I agree with the nom. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is yet one of these software stubs, the description is barely 1,5 lines, the tone is NPOV, factual, and encyclopedic.  Perfectly verifiable. Wikipedia would do its readers a service having this stub.  The technical offense here is if it violates the notability guideline, I repeat, it's a guideline, not policy.  A Google search for FluidVM returns 1,000+ hits.  The software has certainly been able to generate very widespread discussion.  It's mainly specialist blogs, and some of them seem to have editorial oversight, i.e. what would 10 years ago be sort of a column in some sort of specialist magazine.  I havent sifted through all of the hits, but I would say some do approximate reliable sources.  More importantly, it wasnt such a big deal to find a Gbooks hit where the software is given a quite extensive treatment.
 * p80, p133


 * I must say that I looked into this matter because the nominee recently also failed to find sources for another software stub, see Articles for deletion/Boujou‎. best Power.corrupts (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first link is a self-published book. Lulu.com is a site for people to self publish books. The second link is a blog. The last comment is unnecessary and is probably just there because you want to show how superior you are to me. You failed also, but you are an inclusionist. Joe Chill (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to get rid of the notability guideline and have everyone go by their personal opinions? Wikipedia would be in chaos if that happened. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Self published books are frowed upon in biographies, precisely because they do not qualify as independent mention. In this case  however, the mention is independent - somebody other than the software creators found the software important enough to include it in a book.  I disagree with your blanket rejection of all titles from the Lulu publisher.  Being "unable to find sources" is a statement that should not be taken lightly, it is a death sentence, as stuff must go if it is not WP:V.  However, if it does meet WP:V and WP:NPOV chaos wont reign. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What if someone was able to verify info about their dog in the local newspaper? Guidelines bring order to chaos. (A little off topic, but whatever). Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 31 August 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.