Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TPoX


 * 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 keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TPoX

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible COI/spam (look at the username who created the article, and the ratio of external links to wikilinks. I found about 300 ghits on the subject, which is low for a term relating to XML, so I doubt the notability. Shalom Hello 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 17:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep until we can get expert advice on this topic, specifically. It seems to be notable. I welcomed the author/creator after he contacted me about my tag (with the wrong syntax, oops). I placed the tag (and fixed it) to get expert attention. I know a bit about HTML, Wikis, etc., but not anything more advanced.  Can anyone out there help us? Bearian 16:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a new author on Wikipedia and in retrospect I regret the narrow choice of user name (can I change it?). Yes, TPoX is a relatively new benchmark but seems to contribute to an area of growing interest. If the number of ghits is a criterion for deletion then maybe it's too early to have this article on Wikipedia, and we can revisit at a later time. Both Intel and IBM have used this benchmark recently, so I thought this would be of interest. It was not my intention to create CIO or spam. As for the many wikilinks: I thought it's a good idea to show the relationship to related topics. I'm open to suggestions. --Tpox 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm a programmer and engineer and I have certainly heard of this benchmark, although I agree it is still relatively new and rare. Interesting paradox: no article until it gains acceptance but putting up an article and link references might help it gain acceptance? No strong assertions and I'm relatively new here, but I have heard of it. Kruglick 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are other ways of gaining acceptance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a means of gaining acceptance; see WP:SPAM. Morgan Wick 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable per WP:SOFTWARE. No reliable sources referenced to assert notability (other wikis certainly don't count). -- Kesh 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep on the basis of the references, which include good 3rd party references, and rename, which is easy enough when this is over. DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. References show it has been discussed at an ACM conference and has been the subject of a research paper.  That sounds like enough to me. JulesH 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added one more external reference (from Marklogic). --Tpox 07:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per my tag, now deleted, which asked for expert assistance with this topic. See also above discussion by Kruglick and DGG. Bearian 20:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. XMark appears to be more notable, and there are other XML benchmark suites listed here, but this is the type of software where a few academic and/or real world uses should be enough to warrant inclusion in some form, whether that is an entire article or a section of a more general article. I removed the expert tag as there doesn't appear to be any specific problem with the article, and no query was raised on the talk page. John Vandenberg 07:41, 13 July 2007 (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.