Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curses-based 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 Merge into Curses (programming library). --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curses-based software

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

Not notable fork of Curses (programming library) which seems to exist only to justify category of Curses-using software. The latter property is not notable so there's no need for this article, and it doens't really say anything that the main article on the package does not say. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of this should be part of Curses. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I agree - no references to prove notability on it's own and it really doesn't say anything substantial. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I would have suggested something of the sort a while back, but merging categories for implementation versus uses seems to be less useful. A category also seems preferable to the proliferation of list-of and comparison-of topics Tedickey (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the categories contain applications that happen to use these packages, not implementations of these interfaces. Mangoe (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly - the applications use particular interfaces (the packages to which they're linked is incidental). Some implementations provide more than one interface. I can expand on that if my comment isn't clear Tedickey (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There's no reason the curses article needs a fork out. While this is a major software library, the notion that every program that linked it in needs to be added here is absurd. Adds nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is obscure: why is this difference from other categories, e.g., the license ones, or applications using particular X libraries? Tedickey (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point, here, or above. This isn't a category. There's nothing stopping you from creating a category for programs that use the curses library. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our comments were in the context of my comment to Mangoe; your phrasing "every program that linked it in needs to be added here" is confusing me Tedickey (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Use individual software articles and categories for the list. (Of course, deletionists will then say 'non notable software', but then they probably don't know Unix.) prat (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article might be needed in the future but right now there is not enough content. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:49, 29 July 2010 (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.