Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLAWS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Xclamation point 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CLAWS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No third-party sources; in fact, no assertion of notability except in edit summaries. Ipatrol (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:N general notability. Sourced only from the project's own webpage and one of the project members' blogs. Two attempts to solicit WP:RS have failed: first by removal, then by sourcing a conference announcement. —129.21.179.32 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I don't monitor Wikipedia 24x7 for changes. I have this thing called a job...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability guidelines for web content, especially Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. I'm afraid I just don't see that in this article. Cheers. I'mperator 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Software is unique in that the developer is the sole authority on the product. Especially in the case of FOSS, there are unlikely to be third-party articles that would meet WP:N. Should we remove all articles related to FOSS that don't strictly meet notability requirements? I think the article could use improvement, but deleting it seems to violate the spirit of an open encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk • contribs)
- The article could use improvement by the way of reliable sourcing in third party sources. The mere fact that it FOSS doesn't give it a free pass. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, FOSS projects are far less likely to have third-party sources that you'd consider notable. I realize the purpose behind WP:N, but it's a guideline and not a rule. Guidelines give us a general path to follow and allow us to exercise discretion. The arguments presented here by others fail to take into account the nature of FOSS. You can't reasonably point at WP:N like it's some holy law that thou shalt not break. I think it's worth discussing some happy-medium for FOSS projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could use improvement by the way of reliable sourcing in third party sources. The mere fact that it FOSS doesn't give it a free pass. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (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.