Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal generating 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   keep. (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fractal generating software

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

Article seems to be a personal essay with more opinion than fact. Cites no reliable sources. Even with major cleanup, article cites no facts that can be verified. Delete TheRingess (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs do not contain opinions, the last two do. Would you be happy if I deleted the last two paragraphs?

Nearly every statement in the first paragraph can be easily verified. A minority of the statements in the second paragraph are of such a nature as to be not so easily checked.

I have cleaned up the article somewhat in line with your comments. What do you think?

Do you really think there is no need for an article on this topic? Soler97 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC) As the original author, I am quite happy with its current list form. It won't win any awards, but so what? It seems informative, neutral and to the point. What puzzles me is what reasons people have for wanting to delete the article in its present form. Surely not every 'reasonable' and uncontentious statement needs a citation? Soler97 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay (original research). A list article could be useful. WillOakland (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've re-written and tidied up the article so it is less of an essay. The list of programs is supported by a reference (but perhaps not a reliable source); the list of features is still OR. At present I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not, but I could come down off the fence if someone can provide more references. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Tagging for rescue, as I believe the subject is notable and encyclopedic, even if the article in question needs work. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This topic could be a useful index or a notable topic and there is no reason that it can't cite sources. It was nominated for deletion just over half an hour after creation, while it was still being frequently edited by the original author.  I dislike AfD being used on stubs that are obviously being improved.  This being said, I'd probably be inclined to agree with deletion if the page looked identical a month from now. --Karnesky (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Give an article a chance. I agree with the above saying that there has to be sources out there for this. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks saveable to me, though it needs a lot of work still. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. May have looked like an essay at time of nomination, but now it looks like a list and can be kept per WP:LIST. --Itub (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Soler97 Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". At the moment the list of fractal generating programs is attributed to a source (although not necessarily a reliable source), but the list of features of such programs is not attributed, which contravenes the policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It seems to me that none of the claims of the article is "likely to be challenged". No-one has made a challenge so far, and I would be very surprised if anyone made a challenge in good faith, unless it was on a minor technicality or clarification. The article represents basic common knowledge for people who have used fractal generators. Surely, basic common knowledge on a well-defined subject that is easily checked by anyone who wants to do so does not require references from published sources. An article on soap does not need to cite references for the fact that many people use soap to wash. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Soler97 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and add sources, dead boring but notable enough to be written about, add sources. Here are a few online searchable books. -- Banj e  b oi   16:28, 15 October 2008 (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.