Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baobab (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab (software)

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

Mailing Lists do not meet WP:RS, there is no indication of notability in the references provided. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Baobab is a part of GNOME desktop. It should be considered as a separated part of GNOME article, rather then a separate page. It is kept separate only to avoid making GNOME article a way too big. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It needs its own notability to have its own article, otherwise give it a a hidden table under GNOME. Now that you mention it, it appears many of the articles under List of GNOME applications are non-notable, and have only primary sources. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 17:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hell no! We shouldn't spoil the good articles just because You don't like the per-component structure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability guidelines certainly apply to components of GNOME. Topics need to satisfy WP:N to have their own article, whether or not they're components of some larger thing. I could also see having an article like List of GNOME components which could cover the material without making the main article too long. I'd think it would meet WP:LISTN. – Pnm (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you even try looking for sources? I get quite a few relevant hits typing this into Google Books. —Ruud 15:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Desktop application that is installed by default on several major Linux distribution, notable. No need to merge. —Ruud 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N for lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Being installed by default in several distributions is a relevant factor when considering notability, but the same is true of man pages, print drivers, and config files. To keep there should be at least one secondary source which covers the software in detail. – Pnm (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody mentions "being installed by default". This article should be regarded as an integral part of GNOME article and follow it fate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed as per Czarkoff. Notability is not inherited. If an individual topic can't stand on its own per WP:N, then it shouldn't have its own article. Individual editor's opinion as to exceptions to policy do not outweigh consensus. Almost the entire article reads as an unsourced how-to, which Wikipedia is not. If it is notable software, then passing WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT should be easy. If not, the course of action is clear. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of independent sources mentioning this application: [1] [2]. —Ruud 13:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 is only a few sentences and says very little. I don't think it's significant coverage. In 2 I found 3 which is two sentences. The others I found were even shorter. – Pnm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant enough IMO. —Ruud 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if these Google Books results are changing, or what, but these sources 4 and 5 actually say something about the software. Enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, I'm finally satisfied. Article needs renaming, too. – Pnm (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but.... it seems to me that readers would be better served by a general article on GnomeUtils than by this slight and not very informative stub about a relatively unremarkable tool included in the package. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 22 December 2011 (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.