Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygments


 * 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 Ask whether a transwiki is wanted on mw:Project:Requests, then delete. Alright, the easy parts of this are that the enwiki's inclusion criteria are not met. GeSHi needs its own discussion for a deletion. The hard part is whether to request a transwiki to mediawiki.org. This is fundamentally a question for mediawikiwiki and not for us to answer. Thus, I am going to ask on mw:Project:Requests whether they want the content transferred over, and once the answer is in this should be deleted. Please hold off deleting this one until the request has been answered - once it is, anybody may tag the article as Db-xfd. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Pygments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software engine. This article was also mentioned in the creator's RfA. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands. Or transwiki to mediawiki.org - it's used with recent MediaWiki - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to elicit a reference independent of Wikipedia with this, not just one independent of Pygments. For this sort of library, you need more than "Our site uses Pygments" stated by the site, or " uses Pygments" stated by Pygments, to demonstrate third-party interest.  I wasn't any to find any such source myself after I tagged the article at that time (though I didn't look again today).  Delete. —Cryptic 10:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then I wonder why GeSHi hasn't received similar scrutiny, as it seems to suffer from the same issues. I suppose what I was really looking for when I created this was something more than a disambiguation at Syntax highlighting. Our developers should stop installing software they aren't willing to adequately document. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it isn't documented on mediawiki.org which is where I'd expect MediaWiki-relevant documentation - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - also GeSHi. I have some sympathy for Wbm1058's view that "We have to document our own dogfood", but I don't think WP is the place to do so. WP (by principle) can't create any documentation, only report what's already out there. So WP can't actually do much that's useful for this purpose.
 * To belong here, these would have to show encyclopedic notability: are they innovative? Widely discussed? Widely used?   Being "important" for the operation of WP is something different, and that sort of descriptive documentation belongs elsewhere, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * e.g., on our site specifically for that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (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.