Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPv6 CARE

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 CARE

Non-notable software product. Article had been PROD'ed, but that was removed (by the author). So, here we are at AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this software could be useful for many people. It is currently being used by a very large european research project, called Enabling Grids for E-SciencE. WikiDan61, I understood that you think this project is a "non-notable software product", but can you tell why? User talk:EDUBLE —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The general guideline on WP:notability requires significant, independent third party coverage in a reliable source. I was not able to find any such sources referencing this software. EDUBLE's estimation that the software "could be useful for many people" (which may be a biased estimation, as he is the product's author) is not really relevant. "Could be useful" is not the criterion for notability; significant third party coverage (in a trade journal, perhaps) is required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that software of this kind is useful in the conversion and debugging of legacy IPv4 software in the new IPv6 world. However, WP notability requirements demand more and the author is encouraged to seek independent coverage of this software in the trade press, starting perhaps with a feature article on the EGEE project site that another publication can point to. I have examined the software package and its current state of software packaging appears in rather early stage of development as well (just a tarball of only source files), but had no problem compiling it. The manual is actually more detailed than for many other free software projects, but not bundled with the software directly. Kbrose (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The EGEE document at https://edms.cern.ch/file/980424/1/EGEE-III-SA2-TEC-980424-ZSI_IPv6_Compliance_Test-v1.1.pdf includes references to the tool, but I don't know if it is relevant since I wrote it also. Actually my first idea was that currently no other tool could do what this tool does, so being an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia could refer to it. But maybe this is not the right place for this since the tool is very new. EDUBLE 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable - A small mention in a document doesn't constitute significant independent coverage. It doesn't matter how important or useful the software might be, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Notability and this is demonstrated by coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see this software being of interest to any but a small group of professional programmers. Any reviews are likely to circulate only in trade publications or trade websites, and that sort of specialist material doesn't make a good case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reviews in specialist journals and trade publications would denote notability for specialist software. But in this case, there's no coverage of it in general publications or specialist publications so Delete. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK about deleting it until it gets notability. What's the next step? EDUBLE 08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is no need to do anything. An administrator will decide on the outcome at the end of 5 days of discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2008 (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.