Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twisted (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. ST47 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Twisted (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals. Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines. Clnreee (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clnreee (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems a notable article to me, with more than 3.3K stars in github. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianQuilo (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Although I've never used it personally, as a developer who sometimes writes Python code professionally, I've heard of this, and I think most Python developers have heard of it too. And, entire books have been written about it, see:
 * The second book is not entirely independent, since the original developer of Twisted is one of its coauthors. Still, O'Reilly is a respected publisher in the field, and even if not entirely independent, having a book on the topic published by O'Reilly is a definite sign of notability. Also, see these books which discuss it extensively:
 * I know you say you did WP:BEFORE, but did you not find any of the above in Google Books? I found these just by searching for "twisted" and "python" as search terms. (And, a Google Scholar search for the same search terms finds several papers mentioning Twisted, although I haven't looked in detail to see if those are extensive coverage or passing mentions, but at least a few of the hits appear to be the former rather than the later.) I can also point to extensive coverage by LWN.net:
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you say you did WP:BEFORE, but did you not find any of the above in Google Books? I found these just by searching for "twisted" and "python" as search terms. (And, a Google Scholar search for the same search terms finds several papers mentioning Twisted, although I haven't looked in detail to see if those are extensive coverage or passing mentions, but at least a few of the hits appear to be the former rather than the later.) I can also point to extensive coverage by LWN.net:
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you say you did WP:BEFORE, but did you not find any of the above in Google Books? I found these just by searching for "twisted" and "python" as search terms. (And, a Google Scholar search for the same search terms finds several papers mentioning Twisted, although I haven't looked in detail to see if those are extensive coverage or passing mentions, but at least a few of the hits appear to be the former rather than the later.) I can also point to extensive coverage by LWN.net:
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you say you did WP:BEFORE, but did you not find any of the above in Google Books? I found these just by searching for "twisted" and "python" as search terms. (And, a Google Scholar search for the same search terms finds several papers mentioning Twisted, although I haven't looked in detail to see if those are extensive coverage or passing mentions, but at least a few of the hits appear to be the former rather than the later.) I can also point to extensive coverage by LWN.net:
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per . I agree with SJK that the O'Reilly book contributes toward notability; they are a high quality, selective publisher with independent technical reviewers, leading to a substantial reliable source that provides evidence of the impact the software has made on the field that few third-party libraries attain. In addition to the LWN coverage, there have been articles in reliable sources, such as the Linux Journal:
 * All the above evidence shows the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article itself does not have any insurmountable problems. Hence, keep. -- 10:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All the above evidence shows the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article itself does not have any insurmountable problems. Hence, keep. -- 10:53, 21 June 2019 (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.