Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAlgebra


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

KAlgebra

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11. This is an advertisement, and the only thing missing is the price; we can't solve-for-x because there's not enough info.   Generally, an encyclopedia article does not include the words "And more!" Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Does not appear to have any reliable sources covering the subject. Seems like a useful app, and the binary has lots of mirrors. It will probably be notable soon enough. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shove this in a shredder. I don't know what KAlgabra is even after reading the article. James1011R (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarify - Are software components of the KDE desktop environment considered inherently notable, or deserving of inclusion simply in service of comprehensive reference? From my perspective as a user of free_and_open_source_software the software packages associated with KDE or gnome_desktop are highly notable but perhaps this is a personal fish-eye lens distortion of notability. Has there been some general discussion on this point? Ben Kidwell (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No software is considered inherently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find specific criteria for software in the wikipedia notability guidelines. Is there a discussion area where software area contributors reached consensus on this topic? I am personally surprised that software that is part of KDE would be considered non-notable. Ben Kidwell (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't specific criteria. A guideline was proposed, but it didn't gain concensus. Joe Chill (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the reference. The proposed guideline seems to imply that software packages that are commonly included and distributed in free software OS repositories may be encyclopedic even in the absence of media coverage. This seems like an important point to get some consensus on, because there are a large number of software programs that are ubiquitous in the free and open source software world that don't receive any media coverage. If mainstream media coverage is required for software notability, that would seem to indicate many (most?) free software articles would be non-encyclopedic. This is somewhat outside the scope of this particular AfD, is there a good place to take this discussion? Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the best place to take that discussion. You could try asking on the help desk. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable software. Has attracted no significant coverage. Bongo  matic  05:29, 15 October 2009 (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.