Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordWise

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WordWise (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)

Seems to fail WP:NSOFT. Passing coverage in best, plus the usual official documentation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:HOUND and WP:POINTY and WP:BAIT by nom. ? Is this going to be good for Wikipedia ???? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you try to present argument about the topic, not me. WP:NPA is not the best deletion argument by far... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I notice Talk:WordWise#Plausible merge ... I wonder if the volunteer might have given an option to see if he could find a bandwidth and a window to investigate and execute that merge rather than bringing to AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ok with soft delete to LetterWise. Not that the target article is a great improvement, including on implied notability... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I will support a merge but can only be the first person to propose a merge if I am prepared to execute that merge within a reasonable timescale. Certainly if I was writing from scratch I would I think write a merged article with redirects. It is possible WordWise would be the base article with LetterWise the merged in re-direct but I have not investigated that fully. I'd argue WordWise has sufficient references as sits, but I suspect some may disagree. Combined LetterWise and WordWise are different. But LetterWise is under thread of AfD .... so that's a gunpoint of a possible wsated effort for some plonker. .... considering. Anyway all this keypad predictive text stuff has no relevance in the smartphone age ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The 168 hours is nearly up and no-one else has contributed. If concensus is not to Keep will most very reluctantly and disgruntle volunteer to do a merge to Letterwise. A merge to Predictive text where this is mentioned would ultimately be trivial or disruptive and in practice stiffle further development. Of course predictive text on dogs might not be notable. We have good but primary stuff on these with lots passing references to it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much to merge, a single sentence is referenced. Not much work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It does fail WP:NSOFT, and its companion LetterWise probably fails it as well. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:07, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LetterWise, as the article is insufficiently referenced (per WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage), is short (per WP:MERGEREASON), and has considerable overlap with the proposed target. I note that WP:NSOFT is not a guideline, as it has not been ratified. — Newslinger talk 23:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE - has not been "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field," has not been "recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources." - Epinoia (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: redirect as is would cause WP:SURPRISE. For redirect to make sense WordWise content has to be added to letterwise and I prefer official attributed copy rather than copyvio/plagarism risk and to keep the attributions rightful and respectful. WordWise stands alone on its own merits but to be frank if I was doing a new article I'd probably do one of the pair and redirect the other. However I am lazy and there is better things to be doing in Wikipedia and RL. The failing to meet [WP:NSOFT]] assertions seems pretentious as is pretty impossible to search all the 2,320,000 Google hits on the link above let alone behind paywalls and offline resources especially as Wordwise can have a handful of different context meanings.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better soft delete/redirect/merge target would be Predictive_text#Companies_and_products. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. This argument means content has to be developed continuously remaining without WP:UNDUE weight on the target article. This stiffles the development. It is merge into obscurity. Merges proposed by people who have had a negative view of the article are generally a bad thing. Merges are best performed by people who are merging with a positive approach on the content. Good merges are actually often quite difficult but sweet when they occur nicely. But a bad merge is a bad job. Maybe if an article matures and can get towards GA standard on a high importance article things may be a different matter ... 10:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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.