Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okopipi (software tool) (4th nomination)


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Okopipi (software tool)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dead web project. I almost db-web deleted it before noticing that it had survived AFD. This has no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources: the first AFD's sources are dead, published by entities without a solid reputation for reliability, or the latest news on the site and thus not secondary. (Note that the site's been dead for some years; "latest news" as of when they were published). Essentially the same is true of the sources currently in the article (there's a bit of overlap), and a Google search (which should reveal everything in existence for this recent Web topic) found only the articles that I'd already found on-wiki and a book that mentions the topic in passing. Please note that the first AFD mixed "Here are some good sources" (which aren't) and "It's useful" or "I like it", and the second and third AFDs combined "Keep for the reasons given in the first nomination" with more outright bad reasons; nobody's shown that this has attracted solid coverage from reliable publishers. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: After 3 AfDs a strong consensus is preferable.
 * Delete as per nom. None of the arguments in the previous AfDs are relevant; the first one had comments like this shouldn't be considered a promotional page since it is just an open-source project and the next two were largely "this already passed an AfD". This is a bunch of well-marketed vaporware from years ago.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable software that fails all requirements of WP:GNG for lack of significant independent coverage. Apart from agreeing with this well written nom statement I also agreed with after I read all the previous AfDs. The second and third AfD largely resulted in keep not because of policy or guidelines-based reason but because of the faulty argument that since it passed AfD before the it should be speedily kept &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Dbsseven (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The SecurityFocus, TechTarget, VNU and CNET articles cited as sources are all dated May 2006, which makes this a classic example of a topic that was a mere short-term interest only. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2017 (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.