Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Typist


 * 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. Sources need to be substantial to be consiodered towards notability and the ones provides are not substantial. Notability is not demonstrated by assertion so the delete side has the better policy based arguments Spartaz Humbug! 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GNU Typist

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google Books yields zero results.  Using a regular Google search I was able to find results like this one but nothing that would indicate notability.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I found a brief blurb in Linux Magazine, which describes everything in the stub & I thought that I've seen this program in other print publications as well (but can't immediately find anything. --Karnesky (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Those sources don't indicate notability. I"m beginning to think of software notability much like we think of local celebrity (think news anchors) notability; it needs to be mentioned outside the community. Granted that's hard with software, unlike geography, but I don't see any indication this software's outside notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shadowjams I agree with you fully, but we really need to obtain some sort of community consensus on the issue. There is an essay on the matter, Notability (software) which hopefully one day can become a more solid guideline.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me to that. I had no idea. I'll take a look. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That essay is bias. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GPL-licensed Free software Samboy (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does your comment imply that you believe anything GPL licensed is somehow notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? It doesn't work that way.  JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing to say keep without backup to references seems to be disruptive behavior to make a point. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have seen this product mentioned a number of times in FOSS discussions. Strongly notable (could use some tweaks to article, but that's not a reason for deletion).  LotLE × talk  21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussions? References please. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or create Comparison of typing tutor software and merge. I am not inclined to argue that this particular program is particularly notable to the world at large, but rather that this article serves a useful purpose to those coming to Wikipedia in search of a particular tool.  If someone created a page of typing programs and redirected this article to that page, that would be acceptable to me.  The problem I see is that a large portion of GNU or open-source software could easily be deleted on the 'that isn't notable' argument.  The trouble being that people motivated to write books or articles (usually, the types of media the 'delete' votes above want would have to be professional articles written to earn money) aren't necessarily interested in looking at free programs to see if they are useful for the purpose at hand.  As a couple quick examples of exceptionally useful software that is not currently included here but I believe should be I offer 'PDFSAM' (aka PDF Sort and Merge)... ever want to put two pdf files together?  or take one page out of a PDF file?  This should be here so people looking for such things can find them.  Similarly, I found 'ccleaner' here but not 'easycleaner' a more-limited, but in my opinion better program which serves the same purpose.  If someone does not believe that a particular software deserves its own article, I suggest adding new articles for the type of software and putting in tables similar to Comparison of video editing software... for this particular program, it would be something like Comparison of typing tutor software.  --Matthew K (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. I am seeing a lot of WP:USEFUL styled arguments here, but still no one has produced any evidence of notability of the subject.  Where is the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications?  I'm dying to know, as the closing administrator is likely to weigh these comments accordingly.  JBsupreme (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. Per the Brave GNU World column mention (found by Karnesky above), and a few mentions (as gtypist) plus a recommendation in this this O'Reilly book (which is translated in Japanese and German too). I would prefer to merge this tiny stub in a single round-up article of such Linux software as indicated by Mkoyle above. This and linux.com articles survey 3+1 other newer programs of this kind, but not gtypist itself (although someone mentioned it in the comments section in both articles). We have articles on some of those software (Tux Typing and KTouch, but not on Klavaro and typespeed), but the sourcing is equally thin there. By the way, there's quite a few packages of this kind out there, so clearly some are more notable than others. Pcap  ping  00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article provides no third party sources and no non-trivial mentions have been shown (at AfD) that this software is out of the ordinary. Miami33139 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Due to insufficient quantity of 3rd party sources.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:35, 13 January 2010 (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.