Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate++: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:01, 5 January 2008

Ultimate++

WP:NN software. Only promotional and release announcements were findable in reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted. --Yamla (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the wikipedia administrators are vigilant but the reason for deletion seem insufficient. Have a look at similar projects: Anjuta, Code::Blocks, MinGW_Developer_Studio, GLUI, Agar_(software). Also Sourceforge and Freshmeat, are very notable, and are as apparent enough reference. Phirox (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: any user can propose an article for delete (preferably based on Wikipedia rules). Not every AfD is necessarily evil conspiracy of administrators trying to suppress the progress and enlightement of the masses. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article did exist before (see a forum dedicated to it) and was deleted twice.

I did some work with the IDE, it is interesting and breath-taking piece of work (and often frustrating as the authors decided make it so much different from all other IDEs) but the novel approach doesn't really establish encyclopedical notability of the subject. It is very hard for Wikipedia to reliably cover software, except for the very few widely used tools. Many software articles end up unmaintained, obsolete and full of marketing. History of Ultimate++ page on WP doesn't make me optimist.

Quite a many of the other IDE's mentioned above should be, IMHO, deleted as well. For a truly massive list of IDE articles see Comparison of integrated development environments. I suspect most of these articles were created just because other stuff was already here and we don't want to feel as total loosers who don't even have a text on WP. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * '''Delete'''. The article did exist before (see [http://www.ultimatepp.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1254&start=0& a forum] dedicated to it) and was deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Ultimate%2B%2B twice].
-: I did some work with the IDE, it is interesting and breath-taking piece of work (and often frustrating as the authors decided make it so much different from all other IDEs) but the novel approach doesn't really establish encyclopedical [[WP:NOTABILITY|notability]] of the subject. It is very hard for Wikipedia to realiably cover software, except for the very few widely used tools. Many software articles end up unmaintained, obsolete and full of marketing. History of Ultimate++ page on WP doesn't make me optimist.
+: I did some work with the IDE, it is interesting and breath-taking piece of work (and often frustrating as the authors decided make it so much different from all other IDEs) but the novel approach doesn't really establish encyclopedical [[WP:NOTABILITY|notability]] of the subject. It is very hard for Wikipedia to reliably cover software, except for the very few widely used tools. Many software articles end up unmaintained, obsolete and full of marketing. History of Ultimate++ page on WP doesn't make me optimist.
 : Quite a many of the other IDE's mentioned above should be, IMHO, deleted as well. For a truly massive list of IDE articles see [[Comparison of integrated development environments]]. I suspect most of these articles were created just because [[WP:OSE|other stuff]] was already here and we don't want to feel as total loosers who don't even have a text on WP. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] ([[User talk:Pavel Vozenilek|talk]]) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)