Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exposé clone

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. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exposé clone

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

No real value here. A list of internal links to articles people will never write (that will likely be deleted if they are written) and a link of external links to sites for software that aren't notable enough to have their own articles (some of them dead links, some of them pointing to software that hasn't been touched for years). Any notable clones of Expose are mentioned in the Mission Control (OS X) article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the utter and complete lack of notability, not of the software pieces themselves (maybe they are notable, maybe they are not), but of the concept itself (problem of inherited notability). Should it be kept, rename to "list of Exposé clones".

Redlinks currently in the article are not really a problem: they could just be unlinked. Tigraan (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are a problem for notability - nearly all WP software lists now contain only notable, bluelinked items, per WP:LSC. If the redlinked items were removed, this list would only have 2 items.Dialectric (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate unlinking them, not removing them, per WP:CSC #2/#3 (exhaustive list of unnotable members of a notable group), if the concept was notable. You cannot seriously contend that Anthabounce which is redlinked poses a bigger problem than Switcher which is not linked at all. (I am not saying Swicher is less notable, I am saying "remove all redlinked entries" is weird.)

I do not think the article meets the notability criteria, though. Tigraan (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2015 (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.