Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSPWiki

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSPWiki

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

No indications of notability neither in the article, nor eslewhere on the web. The only reliable source I found on topic is a mere installation guide from DeveloperWorks' blog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an Apache Incubating Project it can merged to Apache Incubator if consensus would be on deletion. –ebraminio^talk 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow time for Merge. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes JSPWiki less "notable" than (say) MoinMoin, XWiki or any of the other dozens of WP-listed wikisystems? Why is JSPWiki singled out for lack of notability, since, IMHO, that the only wiki system that truly qualifies as notable would be WardsWiki being the first of the genre. IIRC JSPWiki was at one stage the wiki installed by default on MacOS. Notable if verifiable?

mikro2nd (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable if notable. You talk about significance, which is not the same thing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator): I would not oppose merge, but the content isn't verifiable, so I can't see the way this action can be performed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be notable and popular. Here are some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) not independent, Oracle's HOWTO on installing JSPWiki on their Java platform; (2) not independent, IBM's HOWTO on installing JSPWiki on their WebSphere, (3) not independent, MediaWiki's HOWTO on migrating from JSPWiki to MediaWiki; (4) blog about unrelated company, one sentence mentions JSPWiki in trivial manner; (5) 92-word user-submitted HOWTO; (6) routine trivial coverage, vulnerability report, such exist for every software ever packaged to Debian. None of these help with notability, even if we forget that HOWTOs are discarded for this purpose in WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - HOWTOs specifically about JSPWiki from prominent vendors independent of the authors of JSPWiki are, for me, strong evidence of notability. I don't believe WP:NSOFT means to exclude these when it says, "Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage". JSPWiki is not "covered in passing" in these HOWTOs. --Kvng (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The vendors are non-independent, as they cover their product usage with many other products. Oracle and IBM have such article for almost any server-side application. MediaWiki hosts such article for many wikis, and their article is wiki contribution itself (self-published/unreliable). The idea behind the notability guideline is that the topic was found worth notice by reliable sources that consider accepting or rejecting topics, while in these cases the sources strive to build indiscriminate collection of HOWTOs. FWIW for nearly any software there are HOWTOs around, so deriving notability from them equals to making every piece of software inherently notable. Regarding NSOFT: it requires either coverage in depth or implication of notability. Neither of these HOWTOs, as much as every other HOWTO, provide any of these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's all well and good but doesn't convince me to change my opinion on this AfD. --Kvng (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your edit summary "still Delete" looks like interesting freudism to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided sources (and I could not find any others) do not appear to be independent, or to provide the significant coverage required. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:48, 11 August 2012 (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.