Wikipedia talk:Software notability

---

An attempt to revive this:

Software is notable if it has been:

• published; and
• a major subject of multiple non-trivial, general interest published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s).

Publication

Software is published if it is available in an installed standard version or series of standard versions, whether these versions are:

• distributed on electronic media;
• made available for download, or
• installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems.

Supplying source code for the software for users to modify does not remove software from the requirement of being published, unless no directly operable package is included and the software is distributed only as source code.

Bespoke software and packages that are redesigned to order for each customer running a variant of them do not qualify for inclusion under this standard; however, the firms offering such software may be notable themselves under the notability guideline for organizations.

Software that is accessed only remotely through a web browser at a site maintained only by the software's maintainers, rather than published and offered or used behind the scenes at several independent sites, cannot qualify for inclusion under this guideline; instead, the websites must meet the notability guideline for web content.

Notability

Software is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in general interest secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

General interest publication

To be notable, software must be covered in mainstream or general interest publications. The publications must either:

• Be of interest to readers who do not have a professional interest in the type of software under consideration; or
• Establish that the software represents a historical or technical innovation of significance outside the field or purpose for which the software was created.

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The publication of routine notices announcing such matters as new versions, the addition of features, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or name changes, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Media of "limited interest and circulation" includes trade journals and sites devoted to computing or software in specific fields.

Investment reports on the software or the business that published the software do not establish notability unless those reports are published in mainstream or general interest publications. Facts contained in those reports may, however, be reliably sourced, but the existence of coverage by firms providing business information to investors does not itself confer notability.

If software has had a third party manual written for it and published in printed book form by a mainstream or non-vanity publisher, this criterion is automatically met. This includes printed third party manuals from publishers whose chief products are such manuals.

Secondary sources

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer organizations and independent reviewers, except for the following:

• Press releases; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.

• Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) appearances in download directories or listings of available software, records of trade show appearances by vendors, and similar listings or directories.

Discussion

What say ye? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to establish a set of rules that will consistently give good results. That is one of the reasons we do not have an accepted set of rules for software yet.

I consider this a pretty good attempt (and I would like to commend Ihcoyc for the effort), but I remain skeptical for now. In particular, the proposed guideline seems to have been written with a set of examples in mind but does not mention them. Adding them at least for the sake of discussion would help us follow the author's reasoning.

Despite the long definition of what "published" means, it seems hard to apply to special cases (and for regular cases, we do not usually need rules). Carnivore (software) or Space Travel (video game), for instance, may fail the "published" criterion. I would rather keep these articles, though. Also, would you have deleted all articles on Windows 7 until it was "published"? Would you delete Duke Nukem Forever because it is unlikely to ever be published?

"Supplying source code for the software for users to modify does not remove software from the requirement of being published, unless no directly operable package is included and the software is distributed only as source code."

What does this passage mean, and why has it been added? Are there examples of programs that a) fail this criterion, b) would satisfy the notability criterion and c) should be excluded from Wikipedia?

"Establish that the software represents a historical or technical innovation of significance outside the field or purpose for which the software was created."

So the dominant software in one field of scientific research cannot be notable enough unless it is used somewhere else as well? There is no such criterion for notability of scientific tools other than software. Why here? What purpose would such a criterion serve?

Instead of dissecting the proposal further, I would suggest that we focus on sufficient rather than necessary conditions (the latter are bound to hurt us in special cases). Other notability guidelines tend to be written in that manner (WP:ACADEMIC even notes that "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable [...]"). Rl (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a bad start. Like the above, I find the published requirement a little too difficult to establish. A main criteria for myself in a new standard would be a statement that most reviews do not confer notability. All consumer products get reviewed and we want to find the things that are notable, not run of the mill. Miami33139 (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Draft 2

OK, here's another revision:

This is a notability guideline for software, meant to reflect the notability of software by measuring its technical or commercial achievements. For the purpose of this guideline, software includes all code or programming meant to be operated by a computer or dedicated computing device such as a game console.

Definitions

For the purpose of this guideline:

• General interest means independent of, not primarily addressed to. or read by:
  • business, management, or investment communities; or
  • information technology or computer programming communities.
• Publications that focus on software whose chief purpose is entertainment (i.e. computer and console games) are general interest publications.

• Historical or technical significance means that software verifiably has:
  • introduced an important technical innovation; or
  • has been recognized as significant in the development of a sector
• in such a way that makes that particular software distinguish itself above its competitors in the field or sector in which it is marketed and sold.

• Published means available in an installed standard version or series of standard versions, whether these versions are:
  • distributed on electronic media;
  • made available for download, or
  • installed as part of the operating system on newly built systems.

Criteria

Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

• It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;
• It has won an award that is reported in multiple general interest sources;
• It has been the subject of product reviews circulated in general interest sources;
• It is published software that has been recognized as having particular historical or technical significance by multiple reliable sources, even if those sources are not general interest sources;

Secondary sources

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.

Acceptable secondary sources do not include:

• Press releases; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
• Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) appearances in download directories or listings of available software, records of trade show appearances by vendors, and similar listings or directories.

Discussion

Is this better? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RI had concerns above about software like Carnivore that wouldn't meet the published definition, but I think this is probably a decent start. Always write to the rule, not the exception. I still have concerns about the wording of reviews. A review should be significant. A review from Walt Mossberg confers notability, while a review on Softpedia does not. The introduction should state that the goal of a notability guide is to separate significant subjects from run-of-the-mill subjects.

I'm also confused about the sources statements. All reliable sources, including press releases and catalogs are valid verifiable information sources about specific facts. They just do not have anything to do with notability. For instance, "CoolWare GPS 3.2 was demonstrated running in a Tesla Roadster at CES 2010 {{ref to press release from company and their booth guide}}" would be a fine reference to that specific fact.

I'm glad you are thinking about this. I've thought about this for awhile but never wrote anything down. One thing I thought about doing was to make a larger subject page about how to write a good article on software, with a definition of notability as a section. This might be a better way to organize usage and referencing of things like press releases. Miami33139 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also trying to think of something useful about awards. There are way too many useless awards that are either thoroughly made up by marketing. Third party awards are often no better. Miami33139 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with the notability. Classic example: poppler (yes, it's been deleted before and resurrected). It fails all criteria, yet it's the de facto standard pdf library on Unix, so it warrants it's own article. It's hard to get coverage for libraries in secondary sources. Any new criteria must make it possible to keep such articles.--Oneiros (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do libraries need their own article? It's an obscure developer topic. Secondary coverage tells Wikipedia that someone else actually cares to write about that material so we should too. Lack of coverage indicates people might not care, and we can't write about it neutrally and potentially without doing original research. This does seem like something that might belong merged with other articles to some kind of meta-topic instead of stand-alone. Miami33139 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they are used (although mostly without their knowledge) by a lot of users. Wikipedia needs more articles, not less.--Oneiros (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"without their knowledge" is the point. Users don't know and don't care which is why secondary sources don't exist. Miami33139 (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with that line of reasoning. Most people don't care about most articles in Wikipedia. We have, for instance, articles on thousands of human genes. Only a bunch of scientists care. But these articles make Wikipedia a more complete, better encyclopedia. The same goes for software libraries: we need notability criteria, but removing articles that "only" developers care about is exactly what we should avoid. Rl (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the new proposal is much better. I note, for instance, that game magazines are now explicitly considered general interest publications, which keeps us from having to delete a major portion of our video game coverage. The discussion thread above, however, illustrates my concern that this guideline might be used to remove valuable content from WP just because the guideline says so. More special cases like Carnivore, games and libraries are bound to come up. I do not like the idea that -- based on this guideline -- such articles will be deleted before we have a chance to consider them here. Therefore, I suggest keeping the {{notability essay}} template and maybe adding an explicit note asking people to bring examples to our attention before deleting articles that we may not have considered in writing the guideline. Rl (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no notability guideline is going to be perfect in dealing with outliers. The Carnivore eavesdropping programme is in fact a government program partially implemented in software. It actually easily meets the proposal: it gets a lot of third party coverage in general interest publications. Notability is distinct from verifiability: notability is the make or break point that decides whether a subject is worthy of an article, not a limit on the sources that can be used to write the resulting article if the subject proves to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Other examples: Comparison of BitTorrent clients and Comparison of TeX editors. Which of these programs should have a separate article? More or less than now? As I said above, I think Wikipedia needs more articles, not less. But I fear the proposed criteria would lead to fewer articles.--Oneiros (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Our criteria must begin from the general notability guideline that requires multiple, non-trivial, and independent, references about the subject. The general guideline then breaks down into ever more granular criteria. The way I read what you are saying, you have a problem with the general guideline, not this proposal. If that is the case, I don't have an answer for you.

This proposal cannot set the bar any lower than it is in the general guideline. The problem is that huge numbers of our software articles do not meet the general guideline as they are currently written. A propery written guideline here will take Wikipedia to a higher quality in two directions.

1. Lesser articles will be deleted. That isn't a bad thing because they are already being deleted now. That won't change but the lines will be clearer for fixing those that need fixing and the results less random for those that need to go.
2. New article authors and the authors of existing articles will have clear guidance on how to write a good article and how to make their article meet the minimum criteria.

Wikipedia does need more articles, but it needs articles that meet minimum criteria. The minimum criteria already exists and we need to interpret that for software. Miami33139 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, general notability guideline says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions apply." In WP:BK, for instance, we have such exceptions for non-contemporary and academic books, again with appeals to common sense. If it is common sense that we need exceptions for some software, we can set the bar lower than what is in the general guideline. Rl (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Common sense suggests that old and academic books may be important beyond their contemporary influence, and it's only rarely that anyone is promoting them to promote a business or a cause. Here, however, common sense suggests that a different approach is needed: we have a large problem with purely promotional insertions of articles about IT business software, and a consulting industry is out there that spams Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting these packages. Coverage of minor packages gives rise to a sense of entitlement: "my competitor has an article, why shouldn't I?" The GNG is not a good enough tool to sort all of this stuff out: there are too many blogs and bloglike columns, too many off the cuff trade awards, to really help determine what's notable and what isn't. Notability for this stuff means that people outside the target market need to have heard of it, IMO; that's what I'm trying to get at here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And you are perfectly right. I agree with your assessment of the problem and again, I am glad you took the initiative in moving this important issue forward. I am just afraid that a singular focus on getting rid of undesirable stuff may result in rules that will get useful stuff removed. The discussion above about removing articles on software libraries that "only developers" care about illustrates that point rather well. -- For what it's worth, I collected a few examples here. I firmly believe that good policy should be derived from actual cases. Feel free to edit that page or move its content somewhere else. Rl (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RI, can you propose some text that would help here? Do you believe there is some kind of objective criteria that would enable these to be recognized as notable as claimed?

Your example page, and the example from Oneiros (Poppler) are great examples of things that seem important to a small group of people, but not the world at large. In fact, the Poppler page should have been redirected months ago (basing policy on actual cases). Poppler becomes a great example. It doesn't meet the proposed standard here, AfD decided it should not exist standalone but it has claims of being important. There are also three articles referenced by Poppler (TeXworks, Evince, Okular) as being software that uses the Poppler library. None of those three articles meet the criteria either. I think the way to handle this is an expanded section on "Writing about software" that explains how software that does not independently meet the criteria should be written about on a larger topic. What should happen here is the creation of a topical "umbrella" article about the Poppler development community. The TeXworks, Evince, and Okular articles would all be merged with Poppler to create this new topic article. This also allows space to write about the other projects referenced in the Poppler article that won't (and probably shouldn't) ever have standalone articles.

This solution would allow us to keep information from four articles that would otherwise be deleted. The topical article would presumably be easier to show third party sourcing compared to four independent articles. Miami33139 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles do not have to seem important to the general public

I would like to address one point that keeps coming up in this discussion: the notion that subjects do not merit an article because they are "an obscure developer topic", "people might not care", "[u]sers don't know and don't care", or because they "seem important to a small group of people, but not the world at large". Based on this approach, even the Britannica would have to prune a substantial portion of their articles. In the published scientific literature you will find reports that Wikipedia is increasingly integrating specialized scientific information. Obviously, the public does not know and does not care. Of course, that does not mean we should go ahead and remove all these articles. So can we put this idea -- that a subject must be important to the world at large -- finally to rest? Rl (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Importance to the general public" is not so much what I would look for, myself. "Notice by people without a professional or financial stake or interest in the subject" comes closer to what I'm getting at. Genuinely scientific and academic topics aren't usually going to be tied to commercial products. That said, as an internet encyclopedia Wikipedia does have an inherent bias that tends to overemphasize IT minutiae. My interest here is simply to create something that's going to reduce the amount of pettifogging about sales brochures and feature lists for minor software products, and the claims that Obscure Trade Association Award and Review in Glorified IT Blog turn these brochures into encyclopedia subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my impression, too, and you have my full support there. Thanks. Rl (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with excluding product brochures and the like. However, it appears you may have something else in mind. As I understand it, you wish to have it so articles about software reviewed by, say InfoWorld, Cnet, and other notable sources be deleted from the Wikipedia. Do I correctly interpret the intent behind your edits? Samboy (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The criteria is whether it can be sourced to reliable third party sources and not blogs, forums and chat logs. "The world at large" just means exposure outside of insular groups, as Ihoyc says. Miami33139 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, what I am going for here is not quite as strict as the web content guidelines, which require published coverage in mainstream sources, but something similar. If there isn't mainstream coverage, only technical coverage, it should be technically important, a breakthrough of some sort; and what I came up with sought to recognize that as a second track to notability. My wording may not be the best, but that's what we're here for. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tracking related AfDs

Is anyone else interested in tracking related AfDs (to see if and how the guideline is being applied)? They seem to be filed in

• Web or internet
• Games or sports
• Science and technology

and maybe others. We could collect them here or somewhere else. Rl (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a guideline, it is an essay and needs to be renamed and edited to reflect that. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No renaming is needed; the template at the head of the page spells it clearly.--Oneiros (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have re-worded parts of this article

I’ve rewritten the part trying to differentiate non-“general interest” sources and the wording trying to make reviews non-notable. Quite frankly, if a given piece of software is reviewed by Infoworld, Cnet, and what not, the piece of software is notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia.

I see there are some concerns about people spamming the Wikipedia with articles about their own software. These are legitimate concerns, but the Wikipedia policies we currently have (reliable, notable, third-party sources, WP:COI, etc.) address these concerns without changing policy and Wikipedia consensus.

If a given article is too spammy-sounding, we can reword the article to be more neutral. If a given company tries spamming Wikipedia with their non-notable software package, we can and do delete the article without needing to make an artificial distinction between “general interest” and non-“general interest” sources, nor creating a new bar for notability (by making magazine reviews non-notable) that deletes content that, up until now, has always been considered notable. Samboy (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I have reworded the definition of "general interest" and re-inserted the language showing that it is required for some sorts of notability. The most significant computing and business media like Infoworld or The Wall Street Journal do in fact reach audiences outside of those communities, and as such deep coverage there probably should be enough. Minor trade publications still should not make the grade, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks really good. For the long term, I’m not sure that “printed on paper” will continue to be relevant; a lot of notable computer magazines no longer make printed editions. For example, PC Magazine, a long-time staple at newsstands, stopped printing their magazine in January of 2009. Another very notable magazine, Computer Shopper, which was famous for its phonebook-sized issues in the 1980s and 1990s, is also no longer in print. I will slightly revise the article to allow these magazines to be used as sources. Samboy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. I had wondered about the original proposal myself; may try to start a RfC on this within the next several days. Good to see this is getting attention and input from all sides of the debate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reassesment

I'm somewhat new to this proposal, but I think that offers a fresh prespective too. I want to ask though where we're at on this. I think most of the initial issues have been assessed here. I think perhaps the only particular issues I see now is the need for an explicit inclusion or exclusion of video "games", or perhaps a more amorphous definition (which is what it is now). Shadowjams (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. This is an essay. Not even a proposed guideline. As a proposed guideline, it would have been marked as {{failed}} a long time ago. Pcap ping 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, the best way to handle this proposal is to make it one worded so all parties can have a guideline that they can be satisfied with. There’s nothing wrong with a notability guideline for software; the only issue is one that tries to make it easier to delete software (especially free/open-source software) articles. Samboy (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Moves

Just a note: Whoever moves the article and the talk page should also move the archives and the archive index and change the configuration of the bots to use the new names.--Oneiros (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to move forward

The need for an actual software notability guideline seems fairly obvious, given that software articles of questioned notability form a fairly substantial subset of Articles for Deletion discussions.

Wikipedia is not a directory of all software packages that can be verified to exist. Because of this, I believe that something at least slightly more restrictive than the general notability guideline is called for, especially since the other factor at work in software notability discussions is the possibility of spam, and the general tendency of articles about software of doubtful notability to be created by editors with commercial conflicts of interest.

"Notability" is a term of art here, a word with a technical meaning. It's also an ordinary English word; what's notable is "worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished." I've tried to keep the common sense definition of "notability" in mind here, as elsewhere, and that's why the current proposal has a two tiered track to acceptable notability.

Two tiers

The first tier consists of software that end users are likely to directly interact with: software such as video games, word processors, mass marketed home accounting programs, web browsers, media players, and the like. For this general class of software, the general notability guideline is probably going to be good enough. This sort of software is likely to be noted in general interest publications that are read by broad audiences of computer users.

The second tier consists of back-office software of various kinds: IT department oversight tools, systems administration tools, programming tools, and business software that is not really mass marketed, and is likely to be in several ways either bespoke or require elaborate customization from the vendor. This sort of software is seldom if ever "notable" in the ordinary English sense. Only small communities of business or computing professionals are its target market. They alone are likely to be aware of it. The general computing public does not interact with these programs unless they are also computing, business, or IT professionals.

For this, more than the general notability guideline's recognition of mere verifiable existence should be required. Unless this software somehow breaks out into the awareness of the general public, in which case it will receive coverage in general interest publications, something more should be required. Technical or historical importance, with significant recognition of that importance in truly neutral sources, is what this proposal requires of this sort of software.

You might say that the proposal is biased against back-office technical and business software. Yes, you could say that. The packages that comes up at AfD suggest that there are many such vendors, with minimally distinguishable products. Businesses of this sort, with purely intangible digital property, are able to spring up and vanish or be swallowed fairly handily. The goal here is to make sure that software that has been recognized as groundbreaking, launching a product niche, or is of true technical importance does get recognized, while not becoming an indiscriminate listing of every such package that can be confirmed to merely exist, or providing a free web host to startup businesses seeking to drum up customers by taking advantage of Wikipedia's servers and usefulness in search engine manipulation.

Precedent

Several different existing notability guidelines were consulted in framing this proposal:

• The business notability guideline. This would seem to be the most immediately relevant, since commercial products are already covered by it. That guideline establishes that media of "limited interest and circulation" do not in themselves confer notability. This, and this guideline's track of general interest versus technical interest, are two ways of getting at essentially the same thing: notability implies a relatively large audience, and material that does not circulate outside of small communities does not confer notability. This text should be interpreted in the same spirit.

• The website notability guideline seems also to be immediately relevant; it is the one existing computing related notability guideline. It requires, in essence, notice in reliable offline and mainstream sources for a website to become notable. The nature of the World Wide Web almost demands such an approach.

• The pornography star biography guideline. Yes, that. I cite it as an example of an extremely restrictive content guideline, born of a consensus that we did not want to provide a directory for porn stars. Porn stars, by definition, are getting media coverage. ("Coverage" may not be the right word.) But porn stardom is generally relatively ephemeral. That guideline requires either coverage by specific mainstream and widely read sources, or groundbreaking work of importance in the history of pornography. (Cue the march from Peabody and Sherman).

As a proposed guideline, this is therefore not radical or unprecedented. We have a major spam problem on our hands, and a situation where we've allowed a culture of entitlement to exist. Conflicted authors of articles on minor software and tech businesses routinely complain that their competitors have articles, why not me? There's an offsite industry of marketing consultants offering instruction on how to create spam pages on minor tech businesses. Gaming the system and offsite canvassing seem common in these discussions.

If you think that this is intended to make deleting that kind of article easier, you're right. It almost certainly can be tuned better, to forbid what it's meant to forbid and permit what it's meant to permit. But if you think that the problem does not exist, the facts seem against you. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline

Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons stated above. I do think that the definition of "general interest" source could use a bit of fine tuning, but I also think that we fairly obviously need something at least a bit more restrictive than the GNG in place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This will start a deletionim spree like no other by excluding coverage in books and magazines aimed at IT/CS professionals from counting towards notability:

“

• General interest means independent of, and having an audience broader than:
  • business, management, or investment communities; or
  • information technology or computer programming communities.

”

• You can expect the all proposed deletions from this list to be be unstoppable if this is adopted as guideline. Pcap ping 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment. They are not excluded; rather, reference to them must show that the software in question is technically important or important in the field, not simply a run of the mill entry among many. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Editors are encouraged to take a look at a few AfD votes from the main proponent of this guideline Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DotProject · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GanttProject · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EcoSCART · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCP hole punching · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sawmill_(software) · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talend · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ejabberd · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FarPoint Spread · Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GT.M and judge for themselves what is the purpose of this guideline. In particular, the belief expressed in the FarPoint Spread AfD that theoretical topics aren't subject to spam and self-promotion is funny. I've seen plenty of promotion of obscure theories around here, (and people adding their textbook as ref to every topic covered in it -- but that's a different matter). WP:GNG works well enough for stopping the promotion of irrelevant theoretical stuff, so it does for software. We don't need a guideline that equates software with WP:PORN. Perhaps we need one like that for case law though (just kidding). Pcap ping 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment. We do have a content guideline on crank theories that seems to be functioning reasonably well.
        
        I will cheerfully admit that this current essay reflects a position developed over the past year or so of monitoring business related AfDs for spam issues. And yes, those !votes show just that. It might not even be necessary, if only we'd put some teeth into the speedy deletion criterion for advertising. Promotional articles, including articles that are mere sales brochures and feature lists, are supposed to just get deleted. So are articles written in gibberish that the average reader can make no sense of. My impression is that too often, the deletion of spam articles has gotten sidetracked with the claim "but it's notable spam", and this proposal is targeted chiefly at the sort of lawyering that goes on when that claim arises, by establishing that glorified blogs and investment reports do not establish notability.
        
        I'm certainly open to alternative approaches. But I don't see simply yielding to the marketing consultants as a good thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Also possibly relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraphLogic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervasive Data Integrator, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkXpress, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewpath, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectPartner, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRR (software), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I am worried that, as this currently exists, this guideline will be used to delete notable and useful software projects from the Wikipedia. For example, I recently discovered a great compiler called Tiny C Compiler, which is perfect for my geeky Desert Island CD project. I discovered it by looking at Wikipedia’s List of compilers page.

As discussed in the recent arbitration case, there are editors who wish to make the Wikipedia less useful by removing little gems like TCC that I might not have discovered if they weren’t on the Wikipedia. For example one editor removed a software program from a listing for, IMHO, no good reason.

Sure, there’s a need to remove cruft; abandoned and outdated open-source projects should eventually be removed. But, the Wikipedia right now is a useful place to find useful open source programs that, because they are open-source, have no marketing budget. I don’t want to see that change.

I will change my vote when I see a guideline that doesn’t delete useful open-source programs. Samboy (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see where Tiny C Compiler has ever been proposed for deletion or subjected to an AfD process; it may have been before it became routine to note that on the talk page, but I saw no indication from browsing its fairly long history. I suspect that compiler does in fact have some historical or technical importance in any case.
  
  If there is a substantial consensus that open source software needs a separate track, obviously that should be reflected here. I'm not sure how to word that, or whether it should be done at all: it may simply be an expression of source for open source software as a movement, on another GFDL project. But if that is what the community wants, let it be made so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• My issue is not that Tiny C Compiler has been proposed for deletion. My issue is that the article, as currently worded, could support deleting the article about this program (and, likewise, its listing in List of compilers) if it became an official guideline. Samboy (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Notability does not limit the content of articles. In plainer English, non-notable compilers can be named in a List of compilers. Notable=gets a completely separate article dedicated all to itself. Verifiable=may be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. There is no policy-based reason to fear the removal of any verifiable compiler from that list as a result of adopting this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lists should not be indiscriminate, though. It is fairly common, especially in the case of comparison articles, to limit the contents of the list to only those items that are notable enough to have their own article. --Karnesky (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• True, but not relevant: the editors' choice to restrict a list to notable items is just an editorial decision (and subject to change), not a requirement under any policy or guideline. That's why I wrote "There is no policy-based reason to fear" removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This essay leans too far in a deletionist direction. It might be possible to fix it to have better balance, but as it exists now, it's definitely unbalanced. LotLE×talk 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose in the current form. WP:N doesn't require multiple sources and does not place restrictions against trade publications. It is laughable that an electronic encyclopedia would assign greater relevance to only dead-tree publications. Software notability guidelines would be useful, but only if they clarified WP:N (perhaps by detailing examples of "peer recognition" that may denote notability, in the absence of "substantial" coverage in reliable secondary sources), not if they exclude a larger number of articles just because the topic of those articles is software. --Karnesky (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:N does seem to require multiple sources under normal circumstances. The use of the plural in "sources" at GNG is apparently intentional. (I remember User:DGG summarizing GNG once as 'N=2RS', which I thought was amusing and concise.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: According to WP:N, this essay is bias. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not agree with the "general interest" requirement. It is simply way too strict. A software notability guideline may be a good idea, but it should include things such as which awards and recognitions are important. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: See above.--Oneiros (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems somewhat more restrictive than the general guideline, while specific guidelines are usually slightly less strict. Notability does not require "general interest" sources, because that would just be ridiculous. That would basically limit potential sources to things like newspapers and 24-hour news networks, as the majority of non-newspaper magazines and websites are not "general interest." The criterion about schools seems rather arbitrary. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose If a software is notable in the IT field and wikipedia does not allow it to be here because it does not have "general interest," that is just ridiculous as the article already met WP:N standards. Many software like JDownloader, Deluge, RTorrent would be deleted. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already have Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), with a section for products. Notability guidelines should be kept at very broad terms, not written for each specific topic. MBelgrano (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary WP:CREEP. I've participated in many software AfDs and have seen no need for additional guidance beyond WP:N and the rare WP:IAR. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as software is just like any other product or service and therefore is covered in depth and in detail by WP:CORP. So what is the purpose of this guideline? Looking at the inclusion criteria, it is clear to me that its sole purpose is to exempt software from WP:SPAM by allowing "significant product reviews" to be the basis of inclusion. This is a bad idea for two reasons:

1. Notability is not temporary; routine news reports about products do not constitute evidence of notability;
2. In accordance with WP:CORP, a company or product must be the subject of significant coverage, which shows that a product has had some "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education".

Other reasons for disallowing product reviews is that they are seldom critical, nor do they evaluate alternative or substitue products. Simply put, product reviews don't provide significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let’s finally get rid of the “General interest” nonsense

A few weeks ago, I tried to get rid of this “general interest” nonsense. These changes were somewhat reverted. Looking at the above discussion, I’m seeing a lot of editors who don’t like this “general interest” nonsense; can we get rid of it please? Samboy (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other guidelines that use similar standards. An article in a Me and The Six Other People in My Exact Sub-Sub-Sub-Specialty trade rag simply isn't as good an indication of notability as an article in, say, Macworld.

Perhaps part of the discomfort rests in the lack of agreement about what is really 'general interest'. I think that when Forbes (circulation about one million worldwide) publishes articles about personal technology, then that should count as general interest instead of "business". (Actually, I'd accept pretty much any publication with that size circulation.)

However, I don't think that obscure specialty journals are usually good indicators of notability. Something that interests the 2,347 people in the world currently holding a CCIE-Security (representing less than one out of every 2.3 million people on the planet) is probably not notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The other thing that I think is getting lost here is that software does not become unmentionable because it is not notable enough for its own article. Certainly Cisco Career Certifications are notable, without each of the several tracks that article mentions warranting a separate article. Nothing here prevents the merger of small software packages into umbrella articles about the general type of package. There's obviously a sliding scale here, but I think the precedent set forth by the business notability guideline holds. If it doesn't have an audience larger than a typical hometown newspaper, that kind of coverage is not evidence of notability.

Now, over the past weeks, I did in fact revise the definition of "general interest" specifically to say that ". Computing and trade publications are general interest sources if they have or have had versions printed on paper, and those printed versions regularly appear or have regularly appeared on magazine racks and newsstands that also carry non-computing or business related publications." This means that Forbes, Business Week, the Wall Street Journal and publications with a similar reach have the power to confer notability on software they cover. I'm not entirely satisfied with that wording myself, it seems inelegant. They're business publications, but they're general interest business publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the "general interest" language is that, if applied elsewhere, would demand the deletion of a whole lot of very worthwhile article, whose topic is in an externally obscure technical area. Many mathematical concepts, or ones from philosophy, or from chemistry, etc. will never be mentioned in general interest publications, and yet they may be highly significant and notable within the area of knowledge they arise from. Software should be treated more like scientific arcana than like brands of corn chips or local-only rock bands. In many cases, some software is equally important to an equally narrow technical community as is some math theorem or the like. What we have in this essay, instead, is a presumption that software should be weighed as if it is a mass-market consumable, which is just the wrong conceptual framework. LotLE×talk 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on to something there. From my perspective, software is not at all like obscure technical concepts from philosophy or chemistry. The software articles that concern me most are indeed more like brands of corn chips. They're commercial products that someone is using Wikipedia to promote.

And, in my opinion, commercial products and businesses really only deserve separate encyclopedia articles if they're household names whose omission would be startling -- i.e. the general public has heard of them, and they're referenceable in general interest publications. The Big Mac sandwich probably deserves a standalone article. An XMPP application server, written mainly in the Erlang programming language (oh, that!) does not. Thus, "general interest", which seems to me to be the main point of contention. Software used in the back offices of industries, on the server side of websites, or for the supervision of IT departments is never really going to be a household name. I don't see individual commercial products in this category meriting stand alone articles. This is what this proposal is trying to achieve. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your idea that they are corn chips and that the people who write them are doing so for promotion assumes plenty of good faith on behalf of the contributors. We are not talking about "commercial products". We are talking about software, including free software that in their relevant fields are notable, and would be deleted by this essay, which is rather the opinion of certain wikipedians. Yes, I agree that shameless promotion should be deleted. Yes, wikipedia is not a private wikia, and I have taken to AfD such articles, and they have been deleted. There is nothing wrong with the current process, especially if we enact this essay, we will unleash a deletionist wave that will negatively impact the wiki by deleting useful, notable articles relevant to their fields. The cost-benefit is not worth it. As for "household name", answer me this. How many people know or understand complicated science theorems? Many of the terms and phrases are hardly "household" names. The deletion of articles on recently made discoveries under such cases won't contribute a "startling" reaction by the public. Yet the articles deserve merit and are still there. If an article is WP:N on a subject that is WP:RS and important to its relevant field, it should be kept, just as Threshold (online game) was kept even though it is no where close to reaching "household" recognition. By your very definition, practically all of the FOSS games articles will be deleted because they have "no widespread name brand recognition". I am not advocating for the admission of obscure software articles, in fact WP:N sufficiently provides means to delete such articles. I am opposing a flawed essay.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(dedent) I think this thread is getting to the misunderstanding behind the "general interest" idea. I do not disagree with Ihcoyc about his/her comments on commercial products. Big Mac deserves and article, but "Joe's Burger Shack" that has two restaurants probably doesn't deserve one on its (hypothetical) Big Joe Cheese. For a product that pretty much anyone might buy (yes, some people are vegetarian, etc, but the type of product has widespread consumption), we should demand a widespread recognition of the brand by the lay public.

However, the analogy with scientific concepts or mathematical theorems is far better. Some software is almost precisely this, in fact. For example, Twofish is encryption software that is essentially the direct expression of a mathematical idea in cryptography. We absolutely want that article to stay around, even though the "general public" will never understand it or hear about it. But another much better analogy is with specialized tools. Most people will never think about or know about a Bristol wrench, but if you happen to be in an industry or doing a task where that's what you need, having an available article is very useful. Likewise, most people will never hear of ejabberd, but people who actually evaluate and choose XMPP tools will want to know about it (I had never heard of that software until a few minutes ago, but it looks like a useful and good quality article).

The other framework that is useful (and also shows why "general interest" is wrong), is the tests we use for publication of books. A book is, in fact, quite a bit like a software application. Both represent an investment of creative work to create (copyrighted) packages that are generally available. Not every self-published vanity book deserves an article, but books on "obscure" technical topics deserve articles, as long as they have a notable reception in their non-mainstream field. It's a fairly narrow range of people who might read Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, but for us folks in the fields where that title is important, a Wikipedia article is a good and helpful thing to have. Something like the old "author test" or "book test" make far more sense than does the "brand of corn chip" test. LotLE×talk 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Here lies the rub. Much of the reaction seems to me to be alarm over the prospect of deletion of free or open source software. Very little of that stuff ever reaches my attention; it's not what I look for. If it's actually free software, and not being promoted by the PR department of a business, few of those articles are likely to refer to the software as a "management solution" with an "ontology" and a "suite of team-oriented, role-based tools" or whatever this week's flavor of cow dung happens to be. If it doesn't read like an ad, I probably won't even see it. My unscientific impression is, the engineering people have real jobs and don't write like that.

My experience is a simple one. "Notability" is a lawyerly side-issue that forms an obstacle between blatant spam and the toilet. This proposal is designed with one thing in mind: to reduce the scope of wiki-lawyering that arises when the claim "but it's notable spam!" comes up. I'm certainly open to suggestions as to alternative ways to achieve this goal, but I frankly am alarmed by the amount of PR-based and paid editing that goes into obscure commercial software articles inserted for a promotional purpose; as the links set forth show, Wikipedia has spawned an industry sector of how to promote your business on Wikipedia, and I think that existing tools need to be honed further to cut this stuff off quicker and more efficiently.

(And Contingency, Hegemony, Universality sounds absolutely hilarious. I'm sure the prose it contains is quite amusing.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Very little of that stuff ever reaches my attention". Nevertheless, a lot of it reached the attention of Miami3xxxx who is also a contributor and strong proponent of this essay, and has tagged a lot of FOSS for deletion (see ArbCom link elsewhere on this page). Just because you don't plan to use it that way, it doesn't mean it's not going to be used that way by someone else. Pcap ping 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ihcoyc's idea that having an overly broad guideline to save a slight bit of discussion over commercial spam seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. Miami3xxxx's mass deletionist pogrom of the last year has been even worse, FWIW. Saving a little effort of "lawyerly discussion" on each spam article isn't worth the side effect of deleting 20-times as many important and worthwhile articles. Just have the damn AfD discussions where a real problem exists, and keep the excellent content... this is especially the case for Free Software, but I don't see it as limited to that. LotLE×talk 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the food analogy is more apt than books. Consider this comparison:

Food	Computing
Bread	Software
Cake	Web servers
Sachertorte	Apache HTTP Server
An unimportant brand of chocolate torte	An unimportant brand of web server
Sachertorte specifically from Demel's in Vienna	A common or canonical distribution of Apache
Homemade sachertorte	An uncommon or non-standard variant of Apache

The first few are 'obviously notable'; the last couple are 'obviously non-notable'. We might quibble over whether the line should be drawn exactly here or exactly there, but the concepts seem to line up well, as they both allow us to discuss classes of things as well as specific implementations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is spam, not necessarily everyone's. If we take it to AfD, we happen to avoid any negative impacts on the wiki as a result of fervent deletionists. On the other hand, if we imposed this essay as a policy on every wikipedia, we would be enforcing the views of certain individuals of what is "notable software" in a very strict way that runs counter to WP:RAP and WP:NOTLAW. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lowering the bar for Free software

I think this essay would be a lot more useful if it can lower the bar for Free software. Free and open-source software is software that is more potentially useful for people reading the Wiki (since they don’t have to pay anything to download and look at it), and it is released in the same spirit as Wikipedia’s content.

Anyone have ideas about what kind of wording we should use. I’m thinking maybe “Software that can be freely downloaded under a Free software-compatible license does not have need to meet as rigorous of a notability guideline as commercial software. This kind of software, like the Wikipedia itself, is made available under an open-content license, usually does not have the marketing budget as commercial software, and is generally more useful to the community of Wikipedia readers than proprietary software” or some such. Samboy (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketing budget should be mostly irrelevant. Advertisements and press releases are not reliable sources. I certainly hope magazines and newspapers aren't being paid to run articles. Not to mention that there's plenty of tiny software firms selling proprietary software that don't have big budgets. Saying that free software should have a lower bar because its more useful to readers is POV. We should present all software equally. Whether something is free/proprietary or open/closed source are just facts to present neutrally, not something that Wikipedia editors should be making value judgments on. Mr.Z-man 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although one has to keep in mind that Free Software citations detailing notability are often on less "reliable" sites (blog, etc.) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"I certainly hope magazines and newspapers aren't being paid to run articles". They are paid indirectly sometimes. For instance Macworld Expo is organized by IDG, a publishing company that also publishes Macworld. (One of their editors also runs macosxhints.com.) See the long discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software. So, you are more likely to find Macworld reviews of some product that pays a booth at that expo because it gets lots of exposure; PR budget is obviously not irrelevant. Even more so for getting an Apple Design Award (participation at the WWDC expo is mandatory for that). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmit (FTP client). Stuff like this should be taken into account, even if it's not always possible to jot it down to a set of rules. Pcap ping 10:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I would still disagree. By saying it needs to be taken into account, we're sort of saying that the bar for sources for certain articles should be set higher because they're more likely to have sources (or vice versa) which kind of goes against the whole idea of notability being a standard or a baseline. Mr.Z-man 17:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias of essay

This essay seems to have an inherent bias on the idea that software articles are flawed, contain COI, and/or promotion. The essay seems to be written with the idea that only major software like Windows or "household name brand recognition" products deserve a page on wikipedia. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that software articles do very often contain COI and promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia:SPAM guideline not enough to deal with that? Do we need a special one for software spam? Pcap ping 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Again, this proposal seeks to deal with the objection, "But it's notable spam!" This comes up way too often for me to be satisfied with the status quo. Again, I'd welcome alternative approaches, but I do think that something needs to change. Notability is too easily lawyered about, and spam is supposed to be deleted on sight, but in practice it seems not to be happening that way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is not the only criteria to be used in AfD discussions. If people can claim that it is "notable" spam, then you should make the argument that it violates WP:NPOV, which is our policy (not a mere guideline) and you can work to ensure that all conflicts of interest are exposed. There is zero reason to add a greater barrier to software articles than already exists trough WP:N to accomplish what you want. --Karnesky (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also not really getting the job done, for much the same reason. It's claimed that POV can always be edited away, even though no one ever steps up to the plate to do it, and the people who are beneficially interested in the articles often slowly restore it. It's a function of the law of disparate interest: those who benefit strongly from the publicity generated by a Wikipedia article are interested in that article alone, while I just review AfDs, new articles, and problematic buzzwords generally. What's needed is something that says that commercial products with small markets and that can be referenced, if at all, only to publications with small readerships, are not appropriate subjects for standalone articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I only know of three people think that it is needed: You, Miami, and JBsupreme. This will never be a guideline. Acccording to WP:N, every reliable source is allowed so this essay is bias. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe I don't think that is a fair characterization of my belief system as it pertains to software. I do not believe the Softpedia or C|Net download pages pass the bar for non-trivial/reliable sources, and I do not believe that a footnote in a book of any kind does either. That said, I have come across many articles on Wikipedia about software products which do have substantial coverage from reliable third party publications and are just fine here. Every reliable source should be used, I agree, but I think (perhaps?) we may not see eye-to-eye on what constitutes a reliable source or what makes something notable. If that makes sense. JBsupreme (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Every reliable source is allowed"? It's not just a matter of counting up the number, you know, and WP:N expects editors to be thoughtful about how much weight (including "zero") they give to different kinds of sources in considering whether a subject is best presented on Wikipedia in a separate article, or as part of a larger one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean every reliable source with significant coverage is allowed or reliable sources with trivial coverage for verifiability, but not notability. Don't try to explain the notability guidelines to me because I know them by heart. Joe Chill (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Version

I've started an essay at WP:Notability (software) that takes the opposite stance of this notability essay (or rather, addresses the concerns of the oppose votes listed above). As this essay presents the opinions of one side of the argument, to revise it according to the other would not be appropriate and is the reason why I created the fork. Feel free to contribute to this essay as I'm not experienced in writing legalese. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks really good. I’ve made a couple of minor revisions; I think it’s fair to ask deletionists to spend a minute doing a basic Google books and Google scholar search before marking an article to be deleted. Samboy (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Noian's essay is really excellent, and avoids all the many flaws of this deletionist screed. I don't have much hope in the few deletionists who have written this one making any effort whatsoever to verify notability before continuing their mass nomination of all software articles. I spent some time in the last day going through some noms, which are fairly shocking in willy-nilly nominating obviously notable software that have numerous solid citations inside the existing article. Their attitude seems to be simply that they don't want articles on (FOSS) software, period. It's hard to reason with that. LotLE×talk 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Even when there weren't any sources, you !voted keep just because they were free software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, WP:AGF please. When I point out that some deletionists did not do the research before deleting articles, I’m thinking about some of the evidence presented in a recent arbitration case. I am worried that, unless we make a stand now, the software deletion rampage will not stop and Wikipedia will no longer be a useful place to find little gems of programs. I use the Wikipedia to find out things I don’t know already, such as software I haven’t heard of. Samboy (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of software generally, or of free or open source software specifically. We don't keep pages on minor and obscure back office topics because they are useful to someone. Rather, the purpose of a notability guideline is to provide guidance for deciding when a topic warrants a page of its own.

I've been reasonably careful about doing Google News and Scholar searches on any software or business page I've nominated or proposed for deletion, and usually provided a summary of what I saw when I did so. I can now see more clearly how this has gone off track. The stuff I find isn't going to contain a whole lot of open source or free software: what I'm looking for is red-flag language like "management solution" or "platform as a service", and open source software probably isn't going to be found by those searches. ("Solution" is particularly obnoxious. Not only does it suggest a rose colored PoV, but in practice it also suggests that "you ain't buying this, you'll keep paying us for it over and over again." "Solution" in this sense is perhaps my biggest hot button.)

Yes: my contributions to this page have largely been colored by my efforts against spam and blatantly promotional PoV pushing. It seems that because of this, I've gotten lumped in with other editors who some claim have not been quite so careful, or who have not focused on spammy sounding articles to the extent I have. I also do remain convinced that back office software used in businesses and IT departments very seldom rates its own article. If it has a very small user base, mere existence is not enough: historical or technical importance is what is needed to make such software worth covering. This is what "notability" means in the common-sense meaning of the word. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What will you try to do next? Films? Video games? Shows? Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a film about video games, but nothing to do with shows. JBsupreme (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about breaking into musical theatre, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dicks. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Close RfC as "Failed"

Signed, ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Discussion here has degenerated. Pcap ping 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: There has been lots of discussion and throughout the whole thing, only Smerdis supports it. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. That said, I would like to thank Smerdis for working hard and constructively to address the issue of notability for software. Rl (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)