Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anki: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
This AfD seems to have been created out of spite and a number of 'Keep' voters on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crammage page are now voting 'Delete'. (I did not participate in that AfD). I acknowledge that Anki may be a borderline case, but it would be a shame to see it go because a few people with a "if we can't be here, nobody can" attitude have tipped the scales. |
This AfD seems to have been created out of spite and a number of 'Keep' voters on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crammage page are now voting 'Delete'. (I did not participate in that AfD). I acknowledge that Anki may be a borderline case, but it would be a shame to see it go because a few people with a "if we can't be here, nobody can" attitude have tipped the scales. |
||
Oh - and Anki was published in the April 2008 issue of the German c't magazine. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/58.3.182.104|58.3.182.104]] ([[User talk:58.3.182.104|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/58.3.182.104|58.3.182.104]] ([[User talk:58.3.182.104|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:42, 28 March 2009
- Anki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This is part of an ongoing cleanup of Wikipedia to remove articles about minor products. By precedence, me-too articles about flash-card software do not qualify when only blogs are referenced for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Delete as not notable. --Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This template must be substituted.
- KEEP Anki is highly innovative. Being able to define multi-dimensional facts from which multiple cards can be derived is a brilliant development. I believe this is driving it's popularity, and why it's under such active development. There's no other SRS with this advanced knowledge management mechanism. It is particularly popular for language learning. 206.126.170.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
See the discussion referenced above. There are strict requirements for notability and reliable sources -- also see requirements for no original research. Anki fails on all three, and only one failure is sufficient cause for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.152.178 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Weak delete. Yes, there's the coverage at Lifehacker, but it's only one source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ——C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe that lifehacker and other referenced review sites provide sufficient notability. If paper sources are required, there is also an article due out in a Japanese journal in June, but unfortunately that is too late to be useful for this AfD.
This AfD seems to have been created out of spite and a number of 'Keep' voters on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crammage page are now voting 'Delete'. (I did not participate in that AfD). I acknowledge that Anki may be a borderline case, but it would be a shame to see it go because a few people with a "if we can't be here, nobody can" attitude have tipped the scales.
Oh - and Anki was published in the April 2008 issue of the German c't magazine. 58.3.182.104 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)