Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garmin BaseCamp


 * 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 Speedy Keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Garmin BaseCamp

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NSOFT. Google search for Garmin BaseCamp finds just 11 references, the most in-depth any of them goes that isn't a download page or a WP:SPS is about four sentences on the topic. Google Books search finds several German guidebooks for Garmin GPSes that have a couple paragraphs of the software. Nothing in a Google News search. Newspapers.com had a handful of passing mentions (mostly the same coverage of a GPS being run in multiple Canadian papers.) The only articlespace page linking here is Base camp (disambiguation). Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Withdrawn by nominator" -- I'm withdrawing the article not for any of the reasons gone into below by the page creator (there are absolutely good reasons not to have articles on non-notable, still-alive software, as it will either need frequent updating or be out of date, and because it may often come up as the first result on a Google search while not offering the reader a better experience than the actual download page which may appear lower), but simply because I somehow biffed the WP:BEFORE. I'm not sure what I was doing that got 11 ghits, but I am now getting many more. This doesn't automatically mean that I think it is sufficiently notable -- the first screen of results were not things that contribute to notability -- but I haven't the energy at the moment to pick out the wheat from the chaff. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Where exactly is the harm in leaving this article be? It is neither nonsense, libellous, untrue nor written like an advertisement, and Wikipedia, being digital, is not bound by limits on physical size or weight; your book shelves are not going to collapse by leaving the article here, nor are the Wikipedia servers going to struggle with the sheer size of the article. "What is this BaseCamp thing?" is a valid thing for a user to wonder. Wikipedia can answer that question in a neutral and ad-free way, that is of course if you don't keep deleting things like this. Instead of coming up with ever more stringent a-priori requirements on "notability", ask yourself "could this information one day be of use to someone?". On the question of "notability", the reason this policy was originally conceived is of course to keep contributors from creating pages on themselves, their dog and their impromptu band formed with two flatmates, or to keep Wikipedia from becoming free advertising space for commercial entities (and we have other policies to deal with that), but nowadays it seems to be used as an excuse for people who are looking to spend their free time looking for articles to delete from Wikipedia. I would urge you to look at other article quality measures as well, rather than using "notability" as the magic wand here. I find myself wondering why I spend time on creating articles and other contributions to Wikipedia, if that means a lifetime of defending your content against the "deletionists". I think this eagerness to delete may ultimately harm the Wikipedia ecosystem more than it benefits it. Back when I was a student, do you know how discussions on contributing to Wikipedia went? A bit like this: "Have you ever contributed something to Wikipedia that wasn't removed immediately? No? Why bother then?". So really, this kind of behaviour can keep Wikipedia from attracting new contributors, and we should keep it from becoming some sort of dwindling in-crowd of self-proclaimed guardians of what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia, which apparently means that things can only be included if they're discussed in 20.000 other places as well. So what if it's a bit older or not used very much? It exists, the information is true and verifiable. If there are only a few paragraphs of factual information to give, why should that mean it's not a story worth telling? So, before you decide to delete, ask yourself a few questions. Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to win an argument? Are you acting in the best interest of Wikipedia or are you only trying to enforce a bureaucratic policy (see Vogons)? Create, don't destroy, it's a more useful way to spend your time. --IByte (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Transportation.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:51, 22 December 2023 (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.