Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ΜGFX

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. Sandstein 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ΜGFX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software package with nearly no substantial results in a web search, and as this is a recent software package, a notable one would have such results. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem there. It is correct that it is a new piece of software. Therefore it is not spread all over the world like some piece of software that would be used since 10 years. If you take a closer look to the project, you will see that it is very active. It has a project homepage (note the dates of the news section), a community forum and an active git repository -> the project is active. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a collection of things that exist over several years and that are used by thousands of people? Furthermore, when I take a look at the website statistics of the project homepage, I can see several dozen redirects from that Wikipedia page to the website. Tectu (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But to show notability, you need to demonstrate that this has been noticed outside the MGFX community. Have any news sources written articles about this, for example? Ego White Tray (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Wikipedia requires a certain minimum level of notability for inclusion. Reviews would satisfy this requirement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a deletion mean that the article cannot be recreated once it got the required notability? We plan to post an article about it on hackaday.com and golem.de within the following two weeks. We already have the 'okay' from the former.Tectu (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if things changed and this project did get coverage, the article could be re-created, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you could also have an admin move it to your user page or send you the text. However, if the "we" that posts the article on those websites means people promoting the project, that tells me right there that neither of those websites are independent sources. Independent source means the source writes an article about it because they want to, not because you asked them to. In the case of Linux, for example, journalists write stories about it, not because Linux-advocates request or submit them, but because they want to write articles about it. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like hackaday.com live from the fact that the users submit topics to write about. Hence the submit a tip button on top of the page. Tectu (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that means it is not an independent source. While most news sources do take tips, they don't wait to get one before reporting on stories. I don't know the source well enough to know if it's reliable - that is, I don't know how much they actually verify the tips they receive before they publish things. Some websites will publish any tips without questioning any of it. Ego White Tray (talk)

I've a question: Sometimes people wrote blog posts about work they did using µGFX. Like this one or this one. Are they seen as notable, independent sources/references? Tectu (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blog posts are considered borderline for most blogs, even if runs by the New York Times or a big name source like that. Also, your first one merely mentions it in passing while actually being a post about a different topic. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I see no way around a deletion by the Wikipedia staff. Thanks for your time. Tectu (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.