Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CWSDPMI

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 as I would've frankly commented and I planned to but the consensus seems clear with, of course, any plans of merging be mentioned if needed, because there seems to be no obvious considerations of actually deleting (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CWSDPMI

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. References consist entirely of self-published notes by the author in various forums, and the text of the article doesn't even suggest that the product is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of software products, and this product's existence alone is not sufficient reason for inclusion. ubiquity (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge As far as DOS extenders are concerned, CWSDPMI is one of the more notable ones. This is arguably such an obscure topic nowadays that is might make more sense to merge this (together with the other articles on individual DOS extenders) into one larger article. Or otherwise into DJGPP, the compiler it shipped with. I found a few mentions of this on Google Books, but I could only see the snippet view, so I'm not sure if those are very useful. —Ruud 09:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DJGPP or maybe DOS extender. This is a tricky one, as it's likely that there was some coverage from back in the day. Google Books, for example, shows a hit from C/C++ Users Journal that could probably be used if someone found a copy. However, other online searches turn up little. For example, I searched Dr. Dobbs' archive, but only found a mention in reader mail. I think the best course of action would be to merge this to DJGPP, which is definitely notable. Or maybe DOS extender, which seems like a pretty decent alternative. Although it's possible that there are more offline sources that were never digitized, the topic is rather specialized and esoteric, as Ruud says. I'm a bit skeptical that there are mountains of sources out there waiting to be discovered in the library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary and due to the age of this technology, and seeing that artiles for other extenders (DOS/32, PMODE, DOS/4G) are in similar shape, I'm strongly inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt. I don't see a merge working here but if someone can figure out a way to make that work, there's no need to get AfD involved in that. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2016 (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.