Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powtils


 * 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. Fram (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Powtils

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Website that does not meet our criteria for notability of websites. Does not have any independent, published sources that would allow readers to verify the information contained in the article. Disputed proposed deletion so bringing here for discussion. Gwernol 05:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Research Please

Use your fingers and a tool called Google Gwernol. You marked the page for deletion within 20 seconds while I was creating and updating it, which means mathematically that it was impossible for you to have done appropriate research before your nomination. Powtils has several third party verifiable sources as listed in the external links, including SourceForge, Google Code, Freepascal Wiki, Lazarus Wiki, Z505. If you look further you will find PasForum, PasWiki, Simple-Wiki, Simple-CMS, Code Pastie, and several other websites discussing Powtils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFiveZeroFive (talk • contribs)


 * Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The problem is none of the external links are independent, published sources. Such a source would be something like an article in a newspaper or on a reputable website. Notability is established by other people writing about you, not by the fact of your project existing on Sourceforge or Google Code. For the purposes of Wikipedia these are not reliable sources. Please read our guidelines on notability of web sites and our policy on verifiability. By the way, I nominated the article for deletion 20 minutes after it was created, not 20 seconds. Thanks, Gwernol 05:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - although I don't see the personal attack or assumption of bad-faith (a misguided unfounded accusation of incompetence perhaps) but incivility at worst. Back to the article... nope this fails WP:V and WP:RS. EJF (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete So called references here are fairly non-descript download sites or very brief byline mentions. Nothing substantive. Without solid indie refs, it smacks of WP:Spam.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, this feels very like envy... The stated reason for deletion is "The issue is not whether Powtils exists, but whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of web pages."
 * Keep

Unfortunately for this envious low life form, powutils is not a webpage, it is a PROGRAMMING TOOLSET.

"It appears to me that it does not, since there is no evidence that Powtils has been the subject of multiple, independent, published articles. I have opened it to the community to discuss whether it should be deleted."

This is a tautology. The project will be deleted because it doesnt received "suficient" (In who´s sense ?) review, but, if important webpages (Like sourceforge, wikipedia, etc) keeps denying the possibility for exposure, how can it be known and reviewed ? Its a tautology.

AND, being very sincere, who, from those envious detractors, is a real life programmer ?

Because i dont feel that some guys from other academic areas are really suposed to judge the usefullness of a programming tool...

13:30, 28 February 2008 (BRZ-East) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.92.164 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, I'm a real life programmer, not that this is particularly relevant. The issue is whether the article meets the standards of Wikipedia, so the necessary knowledge if Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not a place where software is promoted to achieve notability. It is an encyclopedia which records subjects after they become notable. If Powtils is as strong a package as you claim, then it will achieve notability on its own, and Wikipedia can then have an article about it. Until then, we won't. This is not a matter of "envy", this is a matter of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I suggest you start by reviewing our core policies, then go on to read our guidelines on notability, which will give you greater background on these issues. Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also note that from comments on User talk:189.70.92.164, it is highly likely that this IP is also User:LFiveZeroFive Gwernol 16:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete Per Pgagnon999. J.d ela noy gabs adds  16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of independent sources beyond the above listed wikis and project sites.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2008 (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.