Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNIDOC


 * 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 no consensus. Given the low participation, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

UNIDOC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. Originally nominated for PROD with the justification Lone source is to an informational page for a UN-sponsored EDI standard...which the subject is based on. No mention of the subject in any reliable source that I could find, although there's a surprising amount of other things named UNIDOC. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE, dePROD by Thomasakeri who said they would provide reliable sources. However, the two additional sources appear to both be directly connected to the subject and the last one doesn't even mention the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 16:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Today, some evidence has been added for the widespread use of UNIDOC in Germany: 3 ERP systems with references. Moreover, the UNIDOC article was even accepted in the strict de-wikipedia (Thomasakeri, a rather new user).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasakeri (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the sources provided appear to be primary sources that barely say anything about UNIDOC, I still have yet to see any significant coverage in an independent reliable source. It's possible that it could qualify for notability via some guideline or another about code standards, but I am unaware of any such guideline. signed,Rosguill talk 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Now I understand (may be ... sorry, but I am rather new in the Wikipedia community) and added the link to the official xsd file. May be, anything more is missig? If so, please help me again to complete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasakeri (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, now that's just a primary source document (if even, it's literally part of the subject's code). What I would like to see is secondary coverage in reliable sources, such as a reliable tech magazine writing about the implications of this EDI standard, or an academic paper published in a peer review journal that discusses the subject at length (and is not written by the people who originally developed it). signed,Rosguill talk 17:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks to Jo-Jo. I've just added a note about the meaning of UNIDOC in Germany and a source about this. In addition, the German Wikipedia, despite very strict rules there, has accepted my UNIDOC article. Maybe that's an indication of relevance for you, too. Thomasakeri (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi to all: Is everything o.k. now with "my little article project"? Will the status "considered for deletion" end tomorrow and the article remain? As a newcomer I would be very happy for a short explanation of the further process (instead of losing my work without any comment). Thanks for understanding. Thomasakeri (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , The article is still being considered for deletion, and will continue to be until this discussion is closed by an uninvolved administrator. Right now, you and I are the only people that have actually discussed the article's relative merits––generally, such discussions continue until multiple editors have weighed in. I would suggest just waiting until more people have participated. If no one else participates after a certain amount of time, the discussion will be closed as "no consensus", which essentially means that we act as if it had never been nominated in the first place. signed,Rosguill talk 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you,, for this clear explanation of the process! Thomasakeri (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

During the last weeks, the number of sources (references) has risen to nine. At least six of them are independent. Thomasakeri (talk) 10:56, 2 May 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.