Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimb

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vimb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

does not have notability, all of its references are from blog pages or its github page Editor-1 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After some searching, found one non-selfpublished source. Doesn't appear to be notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How many non-selfpublished sources does it need? It is a useful aid and compilation of information and further reading that is not very easy to find. Many similar software projects with small or stub articles and with a similar situation of non-selfpublished sources are not marked for deletion and may have even fewer references. I think this article should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narwaro is the creator of the contested article and its major contributor. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, and the fact that other articles exist just suggests that those should be nominated for deleting in turn. With that said, you do have a point that niche topics like this might be sufficiently notable within their field for us to consider their inclusion within Wikipedia, similar to how we include all species, but that is not current policy and our duty here is to implement policy, and if we want to change it then there is a suitable area for that elsewhere. NoCOBOL (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see the point that WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, I agree, but to me WP:Notability is given for the following reasons:
  • "Significant coverage" is given, the topic is addressed directly and is mentioned non-trivially in the source discussed above (which I think would be a good addition as a reference), I think you will agree that this source is reliable and published;
  • "Sources": While I agree that there are primary references included in the article, these are foremost used for versions and release dates, for which there cannot be any other source than the developer itself, which I think is also agreeable. While most people, including myself, do not consider blog posts reliable sources on their own (WP:RSSELF), I think these can be valid references owing to the fact that a number of them are stating the same points which to me is a strong indication that those are valid, objective points. In addition to that it is quite challenging in general to be covered or find coverage for software projects that are not backed by companies that can ignite coverage in published sources by campaigns or sponsoring.
  • To many Wikipedia is a starting point for a given topic that gives an abstract and accumulates resources for further reading. This article does that in my opinion and therefore I think it should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process, I am interested in the points the nominator has to add to this discussion and whether they think this article cannot be improved to meet the necessary criteria. Narwaro (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Why we have the notability requirements there isn't the signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability and source a full article. If such sources don't exist, the article cannot be improved to satisfy the inclusion criterea for Wikipedia. It may be that at some point in the future this topic is covered for example in books or reviewed in reliable secondary sources online, and then if WP:GNG is satsified this article can be recreated. --Pontificalibus 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I disagree. Per concensus there seems to be the mentioned secondary source and there are many "unreliable" sources stating the very same in unison. To mention WP:WHYN: With a reliable source there should be enough information available to write a full article, not just a single paragraph, which it is. I do not think this can be added to another article. If you disagree, please point to sections that you cannot verify. In reply to the last point: Please apply common sense here. It is highly unlikely for a piece of software like this to be mentioned in a book, like almost all similar cases. There simply are very, very few "reliable" (i.e. not selfpublished or similar) published books on software. To add to this, I often have no problem finding a dozen reliable, published sources for something like a village but an article like this may get 80 views per year. This article has about 100 views per day, which is more than the vast majority of articles as it seems. I think it is more appropriate here to recognise that there are inherently few reliable sources for this category of article and it would be better to evaluate all facts rather than blindly enforcing strict policies. I urge someone familiar with the matter of this article to comment on this last point. Narwaro (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Irrelevant justifications are invoked above for non-deletion: In reality, it is not enough by itself that an article might be "useful"; self-published sources are null and void as evidence of notability; and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information, where users find everything under the sun. Without proper attribution, texts do not make it. Or eventually get deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (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.