Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokeping


 * 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 - no compelling evidence provided that it meets WP:SOFTWARE. No reason it can't be recreated if such evidence comes to light. Yomangani talk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Smokeping
Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think this is non-notable software? O.K. 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the proposed deletion notice and the above nomination are poor, and should have linked to WP:SOFTWARE at the very least. Uncle G 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per this. Jcam 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See how it works Global Latency Graphs... O.K. 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article fails to assert notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is just a stub. Hope somebody will improve this. Written by the same author, smokeping is not less relevant than MRTG.
 * Delete as per nom. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a software directory Bwithh 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Counterargument -- Wikipedia is not a list of individuals either, however people keep writing articles about other people all the time... O.K. 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: and we try to delete as many of them that aren't notable as possible. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article itself needs significant improvment, but the smokeping is not less notable than a network analysis and management tool MRTG, for example. Why do you insist deleteng just one of these related articles? O.K. 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep while it needs work, Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge. This keeps wikipedia accurate. Today, everyone wants an article deleted. Uncle Kitia 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm fairly new here, but I'm curious why you bolded Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge. Which policy exactly states that?  I see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on the What Wikipedia is not page, with That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as part of the section.  As the article is written now...I see a possible copyvio, but no assertion of notability. --Onorem 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment knowledge and information are different things. O.K. 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That they are, and which category does Smokeping fall into? Please explain your reasoning.  Either way, I still don't see a policy that says, "Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge." Please note that I haven't voted to delete.  I don't feel I know enough about the product.  I was only making an observation about Uncle Kitia's comment.--Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm new too0, but don't you think that that poor African child should be aware of smokekeeping? Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, not beingmade smaller. Uncle Kitia 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What poor African child? It may be true that Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, but that doesn't mean that every article written should be a part of it. I could write an article about the items on my desk.  Is that knowledge?  Does that belong?  --Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprised! What kind of evidence do you need? Just some time ago Jcam has pointed out that smokeping is a part of Debian distribution. The software is notable, however the stub I inserted need significant work to become an article. Which one is more notable a screwdriver or hammer? The same applies with network tools. When MRTG or RRDtool are notable enough to be included, why would you say this particular tool is less notable? O.K. 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Pleas of "You can't delete X when Y has an article" are generally discouraged. Each article has to assert its own notability and provide sources. Vic sinclair 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability evidence by Brainboost -- What is Smokeping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.37.76 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. WP:Notability, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOT Article does not assert notability for this piece software, wikipedia isnt a listing of software programs. MidgleyDJ 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still asserts no notability, no indication of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Sandstein 09:11, 14 October 2006 (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.