Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radicore


 * 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. If Tonymarston or any other user believes that he/she can find reliable sources for this article, I will userify it and help move it back into the article namespace if it is improved. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Radicore

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

No sources cited, notability not established, the primary editor (User:Tonymarston) has a clear conflict of interest; quoting http://www.radicore.org/about.php :


 * Radicore Software Limited is a private limited company [...]. It was established in 2005 to market the framework which was designed and built by Tony Marston.


 * - The software itself is open source, released under the AGPL, so what is the issue? Tony Marston (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted on WP:PROD, then restored by the deleting administrator following a request, then deleted again and now recreated. We need a final decision on this one. -- intgr [talk] 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

or outside links. Why is this notable? I've got plenty of cool code myself. If you want to write something self-promotional, try to establish external notability early to save us the investigation time. It would be hard for me to object as I like writing about myself but sanity check your interest against Wiki criteria, I've also shopped "great articles" in the past...
 * Delete  : appears to be promotional with no attempt at notability

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * - Why are you seeking out this article for removal while leaving all the other framework articles untouched? It is an open source framework (released under the AGPL) just like other frameworks, so why the animosity? How many of the other framework articles were written by members of the development team? How many of the other framework articles contain outside links? Tony Marston (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been going after radio stations and even citing software that I may have written as something no one would not want in an encyclopedia. I've conceded that since we aren't killing trees or constrained by shelf space in someone's den, that inclusion should be liberal. If wiki wants to be a collection of directories, a craigslist with indefinite listing duration, fine. Personally, I would be happy to see chronologies of failed companies as well as success stories and anything which is illustrative and encyclopedic would be appreciated. If you have something notable- an algorithm, unique function, etc personally I would find that interesting. If you have a me too thing and want to put it on a notable list that's fine too. This is really an admin call on what wiki wants... I don't really care one way or the other but if you have an article which is essentially advertising that seems like it may be a distraction to a reader who finds a wiki hit on google expecting to find a factual description of something.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tony Marston, please see the links I included in my nomination (I believe these were also pointed out to you on the first proposed deletion). Nobody would be complaining about your conflict of interest if it was a well-written article on a notable subject. People make an effort to help you if you cooperated and tried to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. However, the article in its third incarnation still fails to deliver; the main problem is that it does not indicate its notability. You should also make yourself roughly familiar with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- intgr [talk] 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete  : No reliable sources cited. Search on Google News finds nothing at all.  Google search finds only the original editor's personal web page and Radicore.org as well as one or two forum posts but those appear to also be by the original editor Tony Marston, the designer and builder of Radicore.  This appears to be an attempt at cheap publicity or a vanity page.  There is nothing notable about this subject that can be found recognized in independent sources.  There is no hope that the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. OfficeGirl (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep  Radicore is well-known, there isn't a  total-absence-of-notability situation Rirunmot (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to substantiate that it is "well known" through independent reliable sources? No one in this discussion has been able to find any.  It may be a perfectly good product, but I think we have all tried to find appropriate source material and still have nothing.  That's the problem-- that the article isn't and can't be appropriately supported in the way that a Wikipedia article needs.  I find the assertion that this product is "well known" somewhat dubious at this point.  Sorry.OfficeGirl (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that establish the notability of this software. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 25 June 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.