Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prayware


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Prayware

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

An IP requested (at the wrong forum) that this article be deleted, and made a malformed attempt at AfDing the article; the AfD tag was removed because a subpage was never created, but I saw it and am going through with it now. I agree that the article subject seems to be a non-notable neologism and no sources are given to verify that this word has widespread use. The word is used twice, on two random websites, which is not enough to prove that it's really an important term. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to be a notable term. Nakon  20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the nominator, this should be Deleted. Crafty (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: if this is deleted, redirect at List of prayware software should also be deleted, per WP:CSD 87.113.26.43 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak merge into Shareware. Google shows some potential for the term; WP:GHITS aren't everything, of course, but the WP:BURDEN of verification rests upon the article's contributors. Failing a merge, then delete. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Otherware per Cosmic Latte (which was linked from Shareware) - Until prayware is notable enough for its own article, if ever, it can sit in the list of weird shareware systems described in Otherware. &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge/redirect to another more appropriate title, a relevent google search turns up bupkis beyond the usual wiki-type content, basically Urban Dictionary is as good as it gets. Per WP:NEO, this neologism has not established itself as a valid wikipedia article term. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to otherware. Surely it can be included there if "beerware" and "catware" are. :) see below --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I just removed "beerware" and "catware" instead... when something is so clearly junk why keep it, and why use it as justification to create more junk? We have "don't add sewage to the already polluted pond", maybe we should add "don't move sewage from one sewer to another when you could just get rid of it".... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked more closely and "prayware" doesn't seem to really be used but "prayerware" definitely is... in fact it might even be notable. However, that has no baring on this discussion.  I'm going to go ahead and add prayerware to otherware.  Prayware can probably be deleted, but I wouldn't object to a redirect since it is still plausible as search term even if it isn't the normal term used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to where that redirect should go. There seem to be three distinct (and none of them very well used) meanings of "prayware" or "prayerware": a) software that helps you pray (timing, subject matter, program etc.); b) software which requires you pray for its author; and c) [used waggishly] software that's so unreliable that it needs divine intervention to get it to work. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Otherware. Given that Thaddeus has found evidence for "prayerware" and this is a reasonable variant on that term, not to mention that redirects are cheap, a pointer to otherware seems the most useful solution. Lady  of  Shalott  03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  03:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect or merge anywhere. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. No reliable sources for this are in evidence. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Prayware looks like the kind of thing that might conceivably exist, but does not. We will improve WP's reputation for reliability if we insist that there be an article only at such time as it can be reliably sourced. If 'Prayerware' becomes a real, sourced article I wouldn't object to a redirect from here to there, as a plausible misspelling. At present 'Prayerware' is only a redirect to Otherware, and 'prayerware' itself has no sources at all.  So at this time I would favor a frank deletion of Prayware, not a redirect to anything else. The above comments in the AfD about Google results for prayware and prayerware are quite unconvincing - we are the #1 Google hit for prayware. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are...raises an interesting (or not-so-interesting) question of why the article was created in the first place. ;) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There may be grounds (as per ThaddeusB above) to create Prayerware as a redirect to Otherware (Already done). This article should be deleted however for reasons such as notability, verifiability, neologism, etc. Manning (talk) 04:10, 8 July 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.