Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikMod

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 no consensus. can me renomed in a couple of months if no sources athena nd will probably not survive afd2 if not improved Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MikMod

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

Contested PROD. My rationale was: "I was not able to find reliable secondary sources for this software. Unlikely to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. Propose deletion per WP:V and WP:N". Contested with edit comment: "why should it be deleted ? The number of edits already show that people are interested in it !!!!!", which I don't believe addresses the issues. Marasmusine (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find so much as a review for this. Per WP:N. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Concerning WP:N. I disagree. Why this article is not interesting for the general audience I enjoyed to dive into articles

about Tracker software around 4 years ago. That's was the time when I also wrote the first draft of this article, when I realized that this software

was not mentioned in wiki. I see plenty of "not so important" articles around in wikipedia, like a collection of all metro stations in New York. While I am not

interested in them, there are other people who are interested in them. OK ! Memory space is cheap, better tag them with a relevance number, like it is done

for the quality rating of an article. Deleting them leaves users only frustrated, like me. I checked and saw many articles about trackers disappeard, this

makes me sad, seeing I cannot refresh my fading memories of the past articles I anymore. Concerning WP:V, well true this article is far from perfect;

but why not tag is as "Needs more references/sources" and leave it alive as I already mentioned that the number of edits shows that people are interested in it

and probably will improve it in the next couple of years.

Please don't turn to be too professional. It starts to annoy me. I created an article stub 1 month ago about the "Plamsa Dispersion Function" which is very important in Plasma Physics. It was only 1 small sentence. I prepared some high quality plots and formulas but when I wanted to upload them I realized that this article was already deleted within 1 week because it did not provide enough informations.

Yeah, great, I abandoned to work on it again.

This here is just an personal opinion, I appreciate your work a lot. Thanks for it. Probably you have a far greater picture about wikipedia in mind than I do. No offense. This is just an opinion from someone who contributes to wikipedia more than once a month. (Sheliak (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I can understand how its fustrating to see a topic you're invested in being discussed for removal. But we don't aim to have articles on every piece of software that exists, and the line we draw is notability. Perhaps a tracker-specific encyclopedia should be started (at Wikia, say) that can detail this software without WP's quality restrictions. (I'll propose that to some of the other tracker-related editors) Marasmusine (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some scraps of information at linux journal, which is enough to verify the software, but not enough to satisfy notability. Redirecting to, and listing at, some "list of ..." article is one option. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Free software that was originally made in 1992 and remains in use today would appear to have historical importance. Given that, I think we can take the sorts of sources that were relied on by 1992 era computer users as reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The large number of sites where this software can be obtained from, the long time it has existed for, and the diversity of the versions indicate that it's a rather wide-spread and long-lived piece of software, that lots of people care about. A few better sources would help, yet I don't see how deleting the article at this stage could do anyone any good. Citing it with "needs citations" and giving it a bit MORE TIME seems like the sensible option. DubZog (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (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.