Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inno Setup


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article.

Just curious, User:Nolan Cohen, did you create your account just to nominate this article for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Inno Setup

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

The topic does not have a detailed independent secondary source and is also not compliant with WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are either blogs or simply software instructions. Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nolan Cohen (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think its widespread use (or not) should be established before deletion is even considered. The proposal alone discredits it to a casual reader. 92.26.189.159 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:POPULARITY Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a popular piece of software as clearly mentioned in multiple different books    and peer-reviewed journal and conference articles.   It is also considered as a language/tool by GitHub Linguist. Uvarun2009 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sources presented above are either instructional guides for downloading software or lack in-depth, detailed coverage. Also, some sources have a promotional tone, such as the one on Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are also sources that remain unverified. Nolan Cohen (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * These instructional guides aren't just for downloading the software. I don't see why they should be disqualified. Keep Aaron Liu  (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment. The WP:PARTISAN clearly mentions that: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Of course, I am not urging to use the exact same tone or point of view from the sources. I have verified all the sources that I provided. I want to highlight that WP:SOURCETYPES mentions that, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The peer-reviewed scholarly articles I provided in the sources, clearly mentions Inno Setup as a "powerful" and "popular" piece of software. Uvarun2009 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I believe the many references (shared above) most likely fulfil the first criteria of WP:NSOFT, namely that it is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". It is featured extensively in books relating to development, often acknowledging its popularity or functionality (e.g. "First introduced in 1997, Inno Setup today rivals and even surpasses many commercial installers in feature set and stability"). Despite the significant number of such references, I'm not confident many are particularly in-depth. Nevertheless, I still feel Inno Setup is notable enough and that this is established. GhostOfNoMeme 09:29, 18 July 2024 (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.