Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widebase


 * 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. I'm sorry mvst3r10n but there's a clear consensus to delete here. It's not enough for something to exist, it has to also be written about. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Widebase

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability criteria.". Prod was removed by an IP with a comment identifying themselves as the software author. The original Prod issues remain, so bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have written: This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (April 2012). I understand that information should be independent for many articles. But for this open source software too? What's the difference, if Im involved, the author, or an anonymous account did it? There stand just technical information and no opinions or somethings. And regarding relevance that you're concerned, have only big software labels a place on wikipedia? I use often wikipedia to search software and APIs for my projects, no matter how small or big they're. It helps me daily to find the right choice. So, I thought: Why not writing about a new open source database especially for large time series that helps people where're searching too. Hope that I have noboy annyoed with this article. mvst3r10n (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of all software. The benchmark that subjects have to meet to have an article is notability, and the general notability guideline is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. With no coverage in independent sources, Widebase fails the GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Developmental pre-alpha software even though site says beta. DocTree (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The only claim is "it exists". Fails GNG.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:30, 5 May 2012 (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.