Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrashRpt

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 Userfy. Moved to User:Mikolardos/CrashRpt (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CrashRpt

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

Non-notable software, no third-party sources offer significant coverage of a subject Grebenkov. (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. (If this is deleted, then Crash_reporter#CrashRpt will also need to be removed) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Change of suggested outcome - see below. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE Guys, are you crasy? There are a lot of articles about software libaries. This article had a lot of references, but Mr. Gerebenkov has deleted them. I had to undo. Mr. Grebenkov, please do not tuch this article by your dirty hands. Please. Wikipeia sucks because of maniacs like you. Mikolardos (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos[reply]

Ok, can it be improved by me to be not deleted? What should I do to improve it? More references or what? Mikolardos (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos[reply]

Comment I (not Gerebenkov) have removed the references that merely show that other items exists (namely: Windows Error Reporting in Vista; Breakpad has an article section on Wikipedia, so it is more appropriate to link to that; link to Windows® Server 2003 R2 Platform SDK Full Download; Windows Template Library; Debug Help Library; ZLib (which has an article on wikipedia, so I linked to that); TinyXML) - they do not mention CrashRpt itself, and are unnecessary to the article - we know that those other things exist. If you want references in the article, they must have some mention of CrashRpt, otherwise they do not help with the article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Post script A couple of other comments - saying that other things exist is not generally a reason to keep an article (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). However, it might be an idea for Mikolardos to look at those articles, and see how the CrashRpt article can be improved. Without knowing which ones Mikolardos is thinking of, I don't know how they compare - but the ones I can think of are Microsoft's Dynamic-link library, Visual Component Library and Component_Library_for_Cross_Platform - the difference between these libraries and CrashRpt is that they are used in a lot of mainstream programs. CrashRpt isn't used in any mainstream applications, or by any highly respected computing organisations all the others I quoted are used by Microsoft and Borland, just to name two). Secondly, there is no need to be so rude towards Gerebenkov - firstly, he had not removed those references; secondly he is trying to improve Wikipedia, like I am. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree, there are no public references to CrashRpt from mainstream projects. If this is the main argument, I agree you should delete CrashRpt. But I beleive that CrashRpt is used by _many_ small and not very small commercial software projects for Windows. For example, Miranda may use CrashRpt (but I'm not sure 100%). Everyone who doesn't like Mircorosft's default crash reporting system uses CrashRpt, because there were no free alternatives. Now of course Google and Mozilla develop their own open source crash reporting system Breakpad, which is an analog of CrashRpt.

2. If you ever wrote an article in any journal, you should know that when you create something new, you reference the previous work, analogous works and other third-party stuff that you used in your work in the References section. It is common thing. I don't know why you guys in Wikipedia do not like references to non-Wikipedia stuff.

3. Mr. Grebenkov already removed my article CrashRpt from russian section of Wikipedia. I do not like guys that remove articles without agreement in discussion (as your rules say). Ok, improve the Wikipedia, but before removing the article concensus is needed. There were no concensus in the discussion. And russian Wikipedia contains very little number of articles comparing to other languages. Removing==Improving?

Mikolardos (talk)Mikolardos —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Would it be possible to userfy this article so that the creator can work on it some more? I made this as a possible suggestion for if the decision was delete on the user's talk page and Mikolardos said that they would like to do that. I know I could just move the page, but I wanted to check the consensus here. I am changing my vote accordingly. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per article creator's request -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:48, 20 August 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.