Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectPier (3rd nomination)

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. No policy/guideline-based arguments to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPier

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Previous AfD was somehow closed as keep on incredibly out-of-policy reasons, like "I use it", and list of random links that are just software catalog entries. It's mentioned in a couple of books, but the most coverage it has is a paragraph here, which is a book from the Atlantic Publishing Company. Pcap ping 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable project, well discussed in article. Automatic nominations of all FOSS seems questionable as well by a couple radical deletionist editors; the fact this is the 3rd nomination after previous keeps tells you something. LotLE×talk 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the personal attack, but I'm not one of the "radical deletionists". I've saved plenty of software articles at AfD by finding sources. Pcap ping 18:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One: This has survived AfD twice before; I, as a matter of principle, am opposed to being able to put an article on the deletion block as many times as a deletionist wants until it is finally deleted. Two: It’s open-source software. Samboy (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it hasn't. Only the 2nd AfD was keep. The first was delete. Pcap ping 18:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had looked at this through my last run-through of the "project management" mess, and chose not to re-nominate it then because it had recently survived the last AfD. But it's still incredibly weakly sourced, and nothing in any of the sources really suggests that it's anything more than just another product of its kind. The references only serve to document the fact that it's out there. Google News sources are quite sparse, and some of them are actually in user comments. We are not in the business of providing a directory of open source software, or for that matter championing open source products over proprietary ones. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at Google results in multiple languages (as this software is available in 20+ languages). There are plenty of results but quite all entries are copy-paste presentation text from software directories. Captone (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a look at the sources posted in the last AfD, and most of them are either promotional descriptions (likely copy-pasted from the software's website), unreliable, or too short to be of any use. Besides, there's no indication this software is any more popular than other software that it's similar to. The only significant coverage I can find is this, and a Google News search doesn't turn up much of anything else. Tim meh 22:07, 16 January 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.