Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnpike (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 keep.  A  Train talk 08:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Turnpike (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Seems to Fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to contain large amounts of original research WP:OR and most statements cannot be verified WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  17:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I refute that the article contains little encyclopaedic content; it seems to me well-written, and a compact description of the subject. It may not contain as many references as it could, but the notability guidelines clearly state that the number of links/references in itself does not determine whether a subject is "notable": it is the subject itself, rather than the quality of the article on it, that determines notability. As such, I would consider the Turnpike suite a worthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia; the fact that it is no longer being developed or supported (by its manufacturers; it is still well supported by users) could equally be applied to Outlook Express.

Disambiguation, redirection, or merging do not seem appropriate in this case. G6JPG (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC) 2017-10-8
 * Comment Article lists two reviews in published magazines (both based in UK). However, I was not able to find coverage in other magazines outside the UK. Hard to judge, there are some RS, but not available online, so one can´t use them to improve the article. Pavlor (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is likely to have been little, if any, media coverage outside the UK, since the product was not I think ever marketed outside the UK. That it was purely a UK phenomenon does not, presumably, of itself make it non-notable. I imagine that most of the UK magazines of the mid to late 1990s would have reviewed the product, but most of them don't have online archives and so their contents are not readily available. JH (talk page) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I think Turnpike was clearly notable. It was bought and promoted in about 1996 or 1997 by Demon when that company was - for a brief period - the largest ISP in the UK, so that Turnpike was probably used in the late 1990s by more UK Internet users than any other software. I don't have a source to back up putting that in the article, but "I was there" so to speak. The article could certainly do with improvement, but finding references from computer magazines over 20 years old and in many cases now defunct won't be easy. Added later: I've now managed to unearth some stuff to beef up the article a little and give it more by way of references. See what you think. JH (talk page) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep The Wikipedia article notes: "Amongst its early reviews were those in the magaizines Everyday Practical Electronics in November, 1995 and PC Format in Spring 1997. The Easy Net book by Keith Teare, published at the end of 1995, contained a brief review of version 1.03 of Turnpike, which had been released in July of that year."

With three reviews, the subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2017 (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.