Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JMathLib
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ESkog (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 11 April 2007 (Closing debate; result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 19:00, 11 April 2007 by ESkog (talk | contribs) (Closing debate; result was delete)
- 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable software; project website has no Alexa rank. WP:PROD notice removed by creator with no explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Software actually does have an Alexa rank. I changed the URL to the software. The original link was very new and not indexed well at Alexa yet.User:stmueller 24 March 2007
- Indeed, Sourceforge.net has an Alexa rank of 98; this says nothing about the notability of the software it happens to host. - Mike Rosoft 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a central notability standard for software? I could go either way on this one. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of; there's a proposed notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software). - Mike Rosoft 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, it fails that guideline. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of; there's a proposed notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software). - Mike Rosoft 09:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to
Matlib,Matlab as a clone.DGG 04:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) DGG 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Relisted to get more votes/comments. - Mike Rosoft 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless a thirdparty reliable source (like a review maybe?) or evidence of popularity can be found. --J2thawiki 17:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no assertion of WP:N. - Aagtbdfoua 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom fails WP:Notability.--Paloma Walker 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Paloma Walker Thewinchester (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2007 (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.