Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICalamus


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ICalamus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ulf Dunkel (creator, RL COI) who left the following message on talk "This article meets the criteria of Desktop Publishing software for Mac OS X where it is one of the few up-to-date, maintained alternatives. iCalamus users asked why this important DTP application wasn't mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Now that Adobe has decided to only offer their DTP software as Software as a service, iCalamus is even more in the focus of users who are looking for cheaper standalone alternatives.". As far as I am concerned, this is WP:ITSIMPORTANT - an invalid argument; and I still don't see any good sources or anything else that would help this meet NSOFT requirement. Not all software should be in encylopedia - get some proper coverage/reviews first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments on my enhancements of the article and on my arguments. I could add much more "proper coverage/reviews", but many of them are not written in English. Is there a problem when I refer to reviews etc. written in e.g. German?

Ulf Dunkel (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can provide non-english sources - see WP:NOENG - though English language sources are preferred. Regardless of language, the goal is significant independent coverage, ie. an entire article or several paragraphs in a book about the subject, rather than incidental mentions.Dialectric (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Ulf, you should disclose you have a WP:COI here: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in cited sources:     ~Kvng (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, those sources I cited in the article. Now, do tell us what makes them reliable? I do not recognize any as mainstream, reliable sources. The burden of proof to convince us is on those arguing to keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These are are foreign sources. Non english sources are allowed and can be used to establish notability. I infer that you assume because they are unfamiliar that they are unreliable. I am more optimistic. ~Kvng (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't apply AGF to sources. Unless someone can explain why a source is reliable, I assume that it is not. Because majority of websites on the web are not reliable; it's a simple game of numbers. Otherwise spammers will figure out that they can just create a bunch of machine translations into Swahili or something, add those sources, and game our system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your rationale. I have already explained mine. I think we're done. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The German sources have independent articles on the German Wikipedia, which has similar notability standards as other Wikipedias: Heise online Macwelt. They are published sources and the burden is yours to challenge their reliability. LjL (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple independent sources demonstrate notability, even if some are in German. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now perhaps as the sourcing could be better but this will also need German attention for any further available sources. SwisterTwister   talk  07:18, 15 November 2015 (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.