This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miami33139 (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 25 September 2009 (I have told SA ru that this is not a bad thing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:07, 25 September 2009 by Miami33139 (talk | contribs) (I have told SA ru that this is not a bad thing.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)OneFinger
- OneFinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This article is clearly WP:Advertising content right here. It also is pushing the WP:Notability Searched and found nothing more than download links for the article. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt that TakuyaMurata would ever spam. Anyways, why would someone advertise something that is free? Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I find this information useful. SA ru (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter. The software has to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that this software is not notable? You did not present any notability analysis -- for example, number of downloads, comparison in popularity to alternative products. You just stated that this software does not seem notable to you. That's not enough. Data are needed. SA ru (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- None of that shows notability. I said that I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Read WP:N and WP:RS. This nomination has nothing to do with my personal opinion (nothing that I do on Misplaced Pages does). Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you find 141,000 Web pages through Google? I've looked at the references you provided, but these recommendations seem very vague. This software is listed in numerous software reference sources. The reason to discriminate against it should be quantitative (number of downloads, etc.). SA ru (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- What you are doing is going by is your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't you find 141,000 Web pages through Google? I've looked at the references you provided, but these recommendations seem very vague. This software is listed in numerous software reference sources. The reason to discriminate against it should be quantitative (number of downloads, etc.). SA ru (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- None of that shows notability. I said that I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Read WP:N and WP:RS. This nomination has nothing to do with my personal opinion (nothing that I do on Misplaced Pages does). Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- How do you know that this software is not notable? You did not present any notability analysis -- for example, number of downloads, comparison in popularity to alternative products. You just stated that this software does not seem notable to you. That's not enough. Data are needed. SA ru (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter. The software has to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:N fails here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Taku (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the software. Everything I am finding is either blogs or download sites. Nothing to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ 00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any reliable sources for LabPlot? SA ru (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an argument for "OneFinger". I am just trying to understand how this community establishes software notability. SA ru (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was exactly my question: does "LabPlot" conform to WP:N? Sorry for the off-topic. SA ru (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did multiple searches for sources when you posted that and I didn't see significant coverage, but I would never nominate an article that someone points out in AFD because that is very bitey. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand that. However, with such position there is no chance for "KDE software" category to become complete. As the result, nobody will be interested in this category, and people will search for the information about KDE software elsewhere. SA ru (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages does not strive to be all things for all people. If people need to go to the Softpedia, or whatever site wants to host endless numbers of articles on every piece of software ever written that is no skin off the back of Misplaced Pages. This information can be better described on sites with looser policies than what Misplaced Pages requires for sourcing and notability. Miami33139 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can understand that. However, with such position there is no chance for "KDE software" category to become complete. As the result, nobody will be interested in this category, and people will search for the information about KDE software elsewhere. SA ru (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did multiple searches for sources when you posted that and I didn't see significant coverage, but I would never nominate an article that someone points out in AFD because that is very bitey. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was exactly my question: does "LabPlot" conform to WP:N? Sorry for the off-topic. SA ru (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Again, WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is not an argument for "OneFinger". I am just trying to understand how this community establishes software notability. SA ru (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, I haven't read that article. I was commenting on what I believe to be the notability of this article which has nothing to do with any other article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 01:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectively disagree. Both articles belong to the same category ("KDE software"). Therefore they have something to do with each other. Perhaps, notability criteria for different types of KDE software should be discussed instead of one item taken in isolation. SA ru (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Every software has different notability. Do you want someone to do a big bundle nomination that will cause many users to be mad because big bundle nominations cause a lot of trouble and makes it so that there isn't a concensus because each software has different notability so that the discussion closes early without anything happening? Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I do not want that. It just makes sense to me to describe all available KDE software without omissions. This would make the description complete. And this is just my personal opinion. SA ru (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously we do disagree, I believe that every article should be reviewed independently of any other article. They should all be evaluated against a common set of criteria and on wikipedia that common criteria is the notability guideline which is supported by the reliable source guideline and verifiability policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with that if you formulated it as: Every article should be reviewed on its own merits. However, reviewing articles in complete isolation (as if other articles do not exist) does not make much sense. For instance, this particular software may not be very notable, but KDE is obviously notable, and a simple requirement for KDE description to be complete may necessitate this article. SA ru (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Every software has different notability. Do you want someone to do a big bundle nomination that will cause many users to be mad because big bundle nominations cause a lot of trouble and makes it so that there isn't a concensus because each software has different notability so that the discussion closes early without anything happening? Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I respectively disagree. Both articles belong to the same category ("KDE software"). Therefore they have something to do with each other. Perhaps, notability criteria for different types of KDE software should be discussed instead of one item taken in isolation. SA ru (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any reliable sources for LabPlot? SA ru (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Computer accessibility. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how the info in this article could go there. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why we shouldn't have a few sentences about this software there and just redirect this as this is a plausible search term. This software is clearly intended to help with computer accessibility where the use of a keyboard is not possible. If we had either a Comparison of computer accessibility software or Glossary of computer accessibility software one of those would be a better redirect target though. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just wondering if something like this could go there because the article doesn't mention any specific software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't right now but there really isn't any reason why it can't. I was somewhat surprised that we didn't have a comparison article for this genre of software though. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was just wondering if something like this could go there because the article doesn't mention any specific software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why we shouldn't have a few sentences about this software there and just redirect this as this is a plausible search term. This software is clearly intended to help with computer accessibility where the use of a keyboard is not possible. If we had either a Comparison of computer accessibility software or Glossary of computer accessibility software one of those would be a better redirect target though. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how the info in this article could go there. Joe Chill (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and oppose redirect This is truly minuscule. Even a redirect gives this more exposure than it needs, why should Misplaced Pages become a promotion vehicle? Miami33139 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and oppose redirect Delete per the lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Oppose redirect per Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #4. A redirect makes no sense because this article will not be merged to Computer accessibility, and this is an implausible search term for "Compuer accessibility". Cunard (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Haakon (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)