Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus palladianum (software)


 * 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. clear consensus for deletion JForget  01:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Opus palladianum (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this software that is under development. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. This is academic software (in development?) and the article based on a 2008 research paper. Would need coverage in some secondary sources for inclusion here. Pcap ping  02:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which surprisingly seems to exist already: eweek. Needs more investigation. Pcap ping  03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Story made it to slashdot. Pcap ping  03:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also an article in tech.com, but this site is owned by the UIUC board of trustees, so not incredibly independent in this case. Pcap ping  03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also mentioned but very briefly, , but hardly any citations so far (the paper was published only a year ago). Pcap ping  03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, weak delete unless something other than "researchers make secure browser (that nobody uses)" 2008 WP:NOT comes up. Microsoft Gazelle probably deserves more of an article than this. Pcap ping  03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete. I found several articles, for example from the ieeexplore.ieee.org library, from the tech.slashdot.org website, from the spectrum.ieee.org website, and from the www.usenix.org website, all claiming that this browser software may eventually rival Firefox and Explorer. Seems notable to me, even if it is still in a developmental stage. Seems to me that it might be best to err on the side of caution and to keep this, just in case the reviewers might be right. If a year or two passes without any new developments on it, then maybe delete it.  Scott P. (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Usenix and IEEE papers are the primary sources; tech.com is run by the university these researchers belong to (as I explained above). Except for that eweek story picked up by slashdot, there's not much else. Pcap ping  22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After noting the fact that their own website at Downloadslists only 13 downloads since Nov. 12, I change my recommendation to delete. Thanks.Scott P. (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per pcap, thank you for vetting out these sources here. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2010 (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.