Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHonArc
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. Article is a one-line unsourced stub. Sandstein 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MHonArc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unimportant program, fails WP:N DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The closest this comes to notability is the word "free". Doc Tropics 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I could not find more than source offering significant coverage of the subject. The one I did find was pretty good though: [1]. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The source found by Odie5533 is:
- Garcia, Roberto João Lopes (2002). "Networking: posting email to the web with MHonArc". Sys Admin. 11 (1): 49–55.
- and there are others that are listed in google books (82 results) and google scholar (238 results). --Karnesky (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the article in Sys Admin is a very good indication of notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One eight-year-old article in a now defunct magazine which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. My opinion is that software needs a bit more than that to claim notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Software is not my area, so I will take your word for that. The multiple mentions (as Karnesky noted) in books such as this also don't help...? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps to paint a picture. The SysAdmin article is really complete, which is good, but it's generally nice to have more than one article on the subject which offers significant coverage. I don't think the ref you just mentioned is significant coverage per WP:GNG. I looked through a bunch of the gBook and gScholar hits, nothing really stuck out to me as significant coverage except the SysAdmin article. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Software is not my area, so I will take your word for that. The multiple mentions (as Karnesky noted) in books such as this also don't help...? Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One eight-year-old article in a now defunct magazine which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. My opinion is that software needs a bit more than that to claim notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the article in Sys Admin is a very good indication of notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (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.