Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapt (logiciel)


 * 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 delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wapt (logiciel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources don't prove notability of software. The sources provided are either all primary sources or sources that do not give indication of the notability of the article subject. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  10:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment (Author). This open source software is a software very well known in France but also wide spread in the world. Plus, there is a French page on wikipedia.fr which i think, means that the software have its place on the platform. I don't understand why it should be remove (no ads, no promotion, only informations i tried to translate from the original version). I spend a lot of time yesterday trying to find articles in english and i put the most reliables of them (those without a commercial purpose). Thanks for your time. Ahamon97 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Ahamon97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I added the link to the Security Certification from the ANSII's (National Cybersecurity Agency of France) website. It looks good to me as a mark of reliability. Ahamon97 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Ahamon97 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak Delete. It's not the most egregious example of an article that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia, but there isn't much that demonstrates English-language notability. Non-notable orchestration tools are a dime a dozen. -- a. get in the spam hole &#124; get nosey 11:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. Very little RS on Wapt.  Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT.  Does this article have a long-term future in WP? Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Recommending adding Salt as this is a re-incarnation of a deleted WAPT article in 2018 but using a different name; and with two SPAs. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "delete" but someone has challenged the close on my talk page, saying there are further insights available, so I'm relisting.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Cardondenis.  Hi Philip, You are totally right that any company can submit its software to a Certification_de_sécurité_de_premier_niveau audit process (as it would be for Common Criteria) and may get awarded the certification if it can successfully go through the whole process. However, in addition to CSPN, WAPT also has been granted the more selective "Qualification Elémentaire" status, which "is the French state’s recommendation of cybersecurity products or services that have been tested and approved by ANSSI" (only a subset of Common Criteria/CSPN labelled software are awarded Qualification élémentaire). WAPT is actually widely deployed in French government networks. I have read and understood the notability criteria and acknowledge that a notable topic in one language Wikipedia may not be notable in English Wikipedia. I may argue that since ANSSI certification process is part of SOG-IS European recognition agreement, and CSPN itself is set to be part of this recognition agreement this year, the notability goes beyond the French language boundaries. Anyway, I understand that you may ask for more references and sources, and I just think that the AfD banner should be replaced by a "reference needed" banner. My 2 cents... Thanks, Cardondenis (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) —  Cardondenis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I still stand with my delete vote because certifications do not equate notability. See the page on software notability for help determining the program's notability. Any software can recieve these certifications, furthermore just because a goverment prefers this software does not make it notable. Coverage in reliable sources would be an indication of notability, and none have been provided thus far. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People often confuse Wikipedia as a record of existence, however outside of specific and historically important things (e.g. WP:PRESERVE), we apply notability criteria as well (per WP:GNG). You need to find articles (even in French as we can translate), that are from material WP:RS (e.g. major French newspapers/journals), that have done a specific piece on this topic where the piece is emphasising its notability (e.g. not just a product review).  That is what would secure this.
 * I also notice from your edit history and Talk Page, that almost all of your contributions on WP are related to WAPT (you have deleted references to prior WAPT articles being deleted on your Talk Page for failing WP:GNG). This is fine (as is deleting your Talk Page), however, it does raise issues that you may have a WP:COI issue, and this article is WP:PROMO. Again, irrespective of these items, as per, you need to find a good quality independent source that highlights notability. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Has this article not already been deleted as Articles for deletion/WAPT (deployment software) by ? Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. We now have two SPAs, and  as Keeps here. Britishfinance (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, , Actually, it is one my intern,  (which is back to school by now) who wrote this (approximative) translation.      He did quite a lot of work on PyScripter and I told him it would be good to translate the wikien article in French wikipedia. A lot of technical articles in IT are subpar (or worst) due to the lack of contribution. More manpower wouldn't be a bad thing, and I thought it would be a good thing to encourage a student to contribute.      He took himself the initiative to translate French WAPT article in English (his PyScripter work was related to WAPT, and WAPT is used and taught at his college). I told him he shouldn't as he would get the whole wrath of wikien upon him (no kidding, I've been there :-)...    Since the article was up, I thought it would be a best to try to improve it to a standard acceptable by the community. I have never hidden my name, you can google it and see what stuff I am working on (be it on google of wikifr). To be clear, nobody has been paid to publish this. I spent a few hours on the weekend and in evening doing this because I thought it was worth it. And yes, people at the office actually told me it is "useless and not worth it".     Anyway, in my line of work (system and network administration), people are not that much active on the "public" internet. And sadly, there are quite a lot of technical oriented Wikipedia article like for example Kerberos, LDAP, Active Directory, Samba, WSUS, etc. that are at best mediocre (and sometime plain wrong) from a technical point of view. But as long as people will think that it is "useless and not worth it" to contribute, it won't change much.     Thank you all for your time, and sorry to have wasted it. If I'll ever see this intern again, I'll blame him dearly for this :-) Cheers, Cardondenis (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Big of you to shove the blame on to your poor intern. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete & Salt : Deleted twice before as failing GNG and WP:NOTPROMOTION, and it doesn't look like much has changed since the last deletion discussion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep & Salt (for what it is worth)  : yes it did changed since last the last delete. There are a few things, among other qualification and qualification. But don't tell me I'm blaming the intern. He is a good guy and don't deserve to be blamed. Since it will be deleted anyway, I'd say farewell and goodbye. Cardondenis (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking out as you have already voted above. Britishfinance (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and based on the insistent recreation of this topic, consider Salting also. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 16:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt' - Struck my earlier vote. Article's been deleted a few times (per CaptainEek's comment) and continues to fail GNG. -- a. get in the spam hole &#124; get nosey 17:22, 6 March 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.