Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeDi

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. Should any editor wish to have the content to merge to another article as suggested below, let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeDi

Contested prod. Article does not list any reliable sources and appears to be a about a non-notable application. TN‑X-Man 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N an article must have independent reliable sources to show notability. It currently has no sources at all, and a quick Google search did not show anything. swa q 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I punched NeDi into google and 6 of the 12 results on the first page were for this software package. I think the problem is that google learns what you are interested in and serves up results accordingly, and since you are not much involved in network monitoring tools google does not give you results for those tools. Here is one of the paid google links that came up when I punched NeDi into google: http://www.groundworkopensource.com/community/open-source/nedi.html?ldsrc=AD-Google&gclid=CImU7IPGl5QCFRZjnAodNloSfg.
Could you QUANTIFY for me how notable a subject has to be for it to be deemed worthy of a wikipedia page?Galapagos42 (talk)

Notability guidelines are here: WP:N. Number of hits in a search engine does not determine notability, significant coverage in independent reliable sources does. swa q 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asserted that "a quick Google search did not show anything" I felt it necessary to rebut that assertion. Is it really the case that google searches can be used as evidence to disqualify notability but not as evidence to qualify notablity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.135.102 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hits in a Google search does not establish notability. But if you can find independent reliable sources that give significant coverage then those can prove notability. I did not do a thorough search, but in my quick skim of the search results did not notice any sources that fit this criteria. swa q 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had created the article as a stub, would I have not been threatened with deletion? Why is it that this article is not being deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_(supercomputer)? Galapagos42 (talk)

Whether or not the article is a stub has little bearing on whether it is discussed for deletion. It is possible no one has noticed the article you mentioned yet. It will have to be examined on its own merits. Inclusion can not be determined by the existence of another article on Wikipedia, see: WP:OTHERSTUFF. swa q 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many independent reliable sources must I cite before you will accept this topic as notable? Galapagos42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally two is considered enough, assuming the subject is not mentioned in passing. swa q 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to create Network discovery and merge this there since the sources I found talk about network discovery in general (here and two here) but not NeDi specifically. Nifboy (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to fundamental and unsolvable issues with both verifiability and notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cisco is notable, and the article is about software. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 19:55:41 19:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - improvement required - The InfoWorld reference is notable and reliable. I believe the article (and network discovery concepts) are an important subject, I cannot find anything relevant on Wikipedia. However, the article needs to expand and elaborate more on their unique apsect relating to network discovery, facts should be cited with 3rd party references. GaryECampbell (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to questions about nontrivial coverage by reliable sources, it is hard to ascertain by reading the article what makes the subject notable and set it apart from other, (possibly) similar software packages. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite so that someone outside the industry could get a glimmer as to what the writer is actually discussing in his/her discussion as it seems to be overloaded with undefined jargon (the latter, however, is not a reason for deletion by itself). B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of infos is natable; this page is just a stub, and they can still be expand.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:51, 11 July 2008 (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.