Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoTwee


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RoTwee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Twitter app that badly fails notability guidelines; article written by its author. Notability and primary sources tags were replaced with a link to a download sites (showing only 150 downloads total), a link to a download site for one of its subcomponents, and a link to a developer-submitted blurb. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... Please take informations more carefully. Total downloads for product lefelines are 913. Not only 150 for a week. about 6 times.--7k8m (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As same, I hope consideration about deletion in great careful mind. Sincerely.--7k8m (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, linked sites you called "download site" is not download sites, but the project sites of products, which is very important source of product information. Please take information more carefully again. --7k8m (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability given in any independent source. "Different from other twitter client application, RoTwee displays tweets in rotating radial lines." So? The refs given establish existence, and two appear to be product linked. Download figures from such are not reliable info. Existence does not equal article. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Refutation Those pages are project page for development of product under open source policy. All source code are managed there (http://rotwee.codeplex.com/SourceControl/list/changesets ) and all source code of the product is available from the site. Such project pages of product would be most reliable info for the product, because not only download compiled program in binary format but also can build program from source code and see inside of the program technically, if you have enough ability. (Furthermore, I'm also not sure why "download" is so mainly discussed here... ) --7k8m (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are sources that tell what it is - but not how notable it is. This is an encyclopaedia with rules/guidelines on what can be included and what not. It is not a technical directory. The sources we look for are independent of you and of the open source project. Articles (but not 'press release' type ones) in reputable newspapers or magazines are usually OK. Blogs, forums, press releases and editable sites like aboutus are not regarded as reliable. Why do people always tell us that sources are what we're looking for when we've looked at them and explained why they're not? Please re-read the nomination - and look at the policies referred to. Peridon (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ... That site is open to everyone including you. Not under my absolute dominant. You can participate discussion at discussion tab and issue tracker tab of that site. For an example, one programmer post question about how to build program. http://rotwee.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=17017 As same as Korath, please be more careful about what one is. I think you are under your wrong impression too much. As if you want just to delete the article under word notablity. I don't think that's Wikipedia way. --7k8m (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh "That site is open to everyone including you." Precisely. It is not what we require. If you don't like our requirements, tough. You are free to start your own encyclopaedia. I repeat, "Blogs, forums, press releases and editable sites like aboutus are not regarded as reliable." A URL like 'rotwee.codeplex.com' is obviously not acceptable as a reference for notability. READ THE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES and listen to us. We're telling you how to save the **** article - if you will listen and find the necessary refs. If you can't find them now, try again when you can. If the product is notable enough, I do want an article. If it isn't, well... Peridon (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In WP:Notability, there exists way of thinking as next. "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." I think you persist just shallow understanding of outline too much. --7k8m (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have one more point. Your comment, "If the product is notable enough", confesses your improper attiude. It is not product but article which should be notable. Well.. RoTwee is not famous product at all now. However, as WP:Notability says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic", it can not be a reason for removal. --7k8m (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An article is not a notable thing. The product that is the subject of the article should be. If you want to get the article kept, please do what we are asking you to do (see WP:BURDEN and provide us with the evidence that is lacking. We usually find that when people argue at length and provide nothing that there is no evidence to find. When people are helpful themselves and want to be helped by us, we help. Those that don't try, we don't bother with. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First, WP:BURDEN which you refered is not for notability, for verifiability. I think you just are to abuse description in article of rule. Second, I believe representing project site where reader can know almost all of the product including source code of the product satisfy verifiability. Readers can read source code if they want to verify article. --7k8m (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:N. No signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources.  — Rankiri (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Though not perfection, "No signs" is not correct because reference to whole source code would be reliable source for program. I feel like this is just an argument around popularity and not notability. --7k8m (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DEL, points 6 and 7. — Rankiri (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, reader can verify article if he/shre read source code available at linked site. Then, no verifiability is not true. For such a reader, I added link to only part of source code at the project site. What is more reliable than source code of that program ? --7k8m (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source code establishes that it exists. I could publish some programs that I've written but they still wouldn't be notable (even if transferred to object-oriented COBOL from Microfocus 3). We want outside references not inside ones. Reports ABOUT your prog by OTHER people. If you can't understand this, sorry. There's no way I can make it easier. I'm not a deletionist (except when it comes to spam...). I'll happily change my !vote if you can come up with what's needed. Peridon (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added link to page of RoTwee at softpedia.com. They seem to find this program and made the page though I'm not sure.--7k8m (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Better one was tweets from other person for the program, however it seems that Wikipedia does not allow link to tweet. --7k8m (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added link to www.twine.com. I don't know them. They seems to find RoTwee themselvs. However I'm not sure this is so called notability... Argument around outside references lose sense here. --7k8m (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a blind belief for secondary sources may be harmful in some situation. --7k8m (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added link to twitdom. They seem to capture screenshot themself. I'm not sure this is so called notability again. --7k8m (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think best reference on the article is link to twinavi. I applied for that site myself, and the staff in that site made a fair copy of introduction over my self introduction. So I feel a little angry around dirty word blurb in comment of Korath. It was an insult for them. --7k8m (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you got in touch with them, and supplied the info, then that doesn't count as independent. Independent means you are not involved with the creation or hosting of the article/report, and/or have no part in editing it. Peridon (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well. I see. Just my personal opinion for their good job. --7k8m (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ? --7k8m (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While your opinions are welcome, please consider WP:BLUD and WP:COI. — Rankiri (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just can't take intension from just one word .... --7k8m (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Quite unnotable. . . Flint McRae (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... Not debate at all. --7k8m (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The links just added look possibly good to me. Could someone who knows them better check them out? Ta. (No, not you 7k8m....) Peridon (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still primary sources and trivial listings is comprehensive software databases. Twitdom.com is a blog that lists all Twitter apps: . Softpedia, Twinavi.com (translation) and Twine.com have no significant secondary coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 12:31, 13 April 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.