Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin (windowing system) (2 nomination)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Twin (windowing system)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nonnotable piece of free software by an unknown person and of unknown value. No independent respectable references. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually, there are two very reliable source references I found almost immediately (but I was trying): and . &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was trying too; I saw some of adverts myself, but I failed to see any notability in this piece of software: how many people use it, how good it is, etc. There are millions of freeware goodies, described in various freeware magazines. Why bother to repeat their descriptions in wikipedia? Lorem Ip (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question could be asked about any article. Why don't we delete all of them? Since there's no original research in WP, someone should be able to find out about it even if the article's gone. Just because there are "millions of freeware goodies, described in various freeware magazines," that may be good enough for you. I like being able to look things up in WP, because I'm likely to get a pretty good description and some pretty helpful links. I don't get that immediately from a search engine. WP isn't here to serve just your needs, or just my needs. That's why I don't want to delete articles unless there's a really good reason to do so. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point; indeed wikipedia is a great starting point for reading about anything. But for this very reason there is a danger for it to become a vehicle for blatant advertising and promotion. For this reason wikipedia has notability thresholds, which covers your request for "really good reason to do so". My point is this piece of software is below it and I explain my reasons. I have no problems if other people prove that my points are insignificant or irrelevant. But your answer does not do this. Once again, if the only references about a software product are the ones which basically repeat its used guide or promotional pitch and nothing else, then I doubt its notability, and thus its right for a place in wikipedia. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern about blatant advertising and promotion. In this case, that's not what's going on IMO. Please look at the two articles I provided above. The first is a long article (in German) from a well-known German Linux magazine. (I read German well enough to be able to look at the pictures (just kidding!)) Actually, I know enough German to get a pretty good idea of what's being said. It's a very substantial review of the software. The second is also a review of the software. The source is in Brave GNU World, the major newsletter of the GNU project, which is the basis for many software packages (including Mediawiki). Also, it seems to me your concern about blatant advertising and promotion doesn't really apply, since Twin is free open source software, available at no charge. I believe that I have met the threshold of WP:GNG. Therefore, I request that you withdraw your nomination. &mdash; Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, but you seem to miss my point: references about a software product are the ones which basically repeat its used guide or promotional pitch and nothing else. The two links you gave are just that: they say nothing about the impact of this product, its user base, etc, just retell what it does and what it may do. Also, from wikipedia it does not look that Brave GNU World, is "the major newsletter"; it is just someone's personal column. Finally, you are mistaken that free software is free from blatant self-promotion. I can give you quite a few examples, but this is not the place. Concluding, you didn't convince me  to change my opinion. Anyway, if you are right, and I am wrong, you don't need my withdrawal, and I will no longer discuss this insignificant subject. Lorem Ip (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep RS reviews are the major source for 3rd party references for showing notability of software. They just have to talk substantially about the software. It's the existence of the reviews which shows notability, not what they happen to say about it. They show that outside specialist thought the software worth reviewing. (basically that's the GNG, and it is accepted as the usual way of showing notability here.)   DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the reviews found by Howard Golden. Lorem Ip, FWIW, the GNU World review does in fact touch on the impact of this software in terms of it's light use of hardware resources and ease of use by the visually impaired. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:02, 22 October 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.