Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaourt


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yaourt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References non-notable publications, and passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  04:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Weak Keep Yeah, I guess, if you want to say It's FOSS and Digital Ocean are non-notable and delete every article in Wikiproject Linux that can't be cited to OMG! Ubuntu! - the Arch Linux article is long enough, but I would probably support merging and redirecting to Arch Linux package managers if we had such an article.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources are trivial. Digital Ocean is not a reliable source: it describes itself on its own website as a cloud infrastructure provider company (ie not a tech/software journalism site with any kind of fact checking). The linked "article" fails WP:RS because it is a user-submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight (see their tutorials page with the big green button soliciting contributions from users). It's FOSS is a self-identified blog, which are rarely if ever considered reliable sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that Digital Ocean is only cited for "Yaourt is the French word for Yoghurt" that is quite a claim. If you were to try to submit a tutorial you would find out that it is not "a user submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight" - contributors are paid, work with editors and they have to apply to become contributors.
 * Additionally, as a Wiki, we want others to think we are reliable but we can't accept any other Wikis as reliable - sure, few come close, and most are pale imitations, but ArchWiki is extremely reliable and up to date. It's disappointing that we can't find reliable sources for articles about a community-driven project, being ourselves a community-driven project, especially when the issue is reliable sources for Linux-related content. The entire FOSS community trusts these people with their system upgrades, but we can't use them as reliable expert or specialist sources? Just who do we think we are anyway? If we can't establish notability for one of the most widely used package managers of a major Linux distribution we must be doing something wrong - but c'est la vie.SeraphWiki (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , user-generated content is basically never acceptable as an RS, per WP:UGC. As an experienced editor you should be aware of that. If you want to start an RFC to change our policy on that, by all means go ahead, but this is not the place. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, and maybe an RfC would be a good idea at some point. I also don't especially think every AUR helper needs a standalone article, especially when we don't have the general article yet. They should probably all be in one article with pacman, and that is easier to find sources for anyway.SeraphWiki (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The quality of references can be improved and as a matter of fact, I inserted a few more references from more reliable resources (i.e. the website of Arch Linux). I also support merging and redirecting this page into a more general article but deletion is, in my opinion, an overkill as Yaourt is considered a useful tool in communities of Arch-based distributions. مظهر (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , these new sources fail to demonstrate notability. Your citations to Wiktionary and cnrtl.fr merely demonstrate the fact that "yaourt" is the French word for yogurt, which is not in dispute, and they do nothing to show that the Yaourt software is notable. The ArchWiki ref is a wiki and per WP:UGC can't be accepted as a reliable source that demonstrates notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The criteria is not if the software is useful but notable. Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform to drum up support or users. Ifnord (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2018 (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.