Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie (software)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sophie (software)

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

Non-notable software; contested PROD. No substantial third party coverage on this subject is in evidence.  Sandstein  09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, with a view to recreate *if* something notable (software awards, remarkable milestones, mainstream popularity etc.) actually occurs. SMC (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All I can find is software sites and blogs. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google search on '+Sophie multimedia "future of the book"' gives 2700 results, including at least one scholarly paper ("Sophie and the Future of Reading and Writing", Forum Futures 2007, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass.) and one call for proposals by a major university. It is not clear how deletion of the article would improve the encyclopedia for our readers. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable yet. This peer-reviewed paper was written by authors of the software, but it's too recent to have citations. Papers written by the authors of non-notable academic software are numerous (wrote some myself), and we cannot guess their future. The other "paper" linked above is not peer reviewed, and also written by authors of the software, so I consider it a manual or guide. VG &#x260E; 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the material that's usually discussed most and best in informal references, and only very slowly and incompletely ends up in peer reviewed articles. The originating organization is a major one, and worth an article -- it has done much else as well. Already notable. DGG (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (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.