Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zena (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 Delete Mfield (Oi!) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Zena (software)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable software with no third party reliable sources. Was prod'd and deleted but restored even though user states the product is not notable and must use wikpedia for advertisement [User_talk:Xymmax#Zena Removal] 16x9 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- 16x9 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The lack of current third-party references is due to the fact that there has not yet been any official stable release for zena. As a developer of zena, I want to make sure the tool is stable and secure before making a lot of noise about it. I would really like to avoid having angry users because they lost valuable data.

From this, we could argue that the page should be removed until the software is properly announced. This argument holds, except that there is a gap between "lot's of public noise even if the tool is totally immature" and "no visibility until stable release". We happen to stand in this middle place because invisibility is too hard for the moral of the troops when you don't get paid for your work. But this is just a matter of months since the stable release should be announced before summer 2009. Gazoduc (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If morale if a problem, adding articles to wikipedia isn't a solution, be that the morale of people working on a new product, playing in a garage band, editing an unpublished book, a movie not released, (etc.). Speaking as a fellow developer, with 28 years of experience, I would recommend that you start seeding technology reviewers with 'pre-release' versions, much as other companies do, in order to generate buzz and RS articles that can be used to make an article. Ronabop (talk)


 * Delete. I'm afraid that there simply aren't independent reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. I'm not aware of an appropriate merge target, either. As stated above, I did delete this article as an expired prod, and restored it upon request. Obviously, I will won't be involved in closing this AfD :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-stable, non-released, non-verifiable, non-notable... non-wikipediable. Ronabop (talk)
 * Delete per above arguments, just not notable enough.TheRingess (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2009 (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.