Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 16

16 January 2010

HOCR (software)

HOCR (software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted for no reliable sources, the page was re writen with 14 new independent sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Kzamir (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the admin who most recently deleted the article. While Kzamir had added many footnotes since the AfD, many of them were not WP:RS and none of them was a third-party article about the software. (A few articles mentioned that X gave a grant to promote development of the software.) The last version of the article was not identical to the version deleted at AfD, but it was substantially the same and I felt the notability problem had not been addressed, which is why I deleted it under WP:CSD#G4. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment of the 14 sources:
  1. http://directory.fsf.org/project/hocr/ - a directory entry fails WP:GNG as a trivial mention
  2. http://hocr.berlios.de/ - Appears to be a project home page - is not independant
  3. http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/karmic/hocr - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
  4. http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/hocr - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
  5. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=4375 - list of packages in a linux distribution again a directory entry
  6. http://code.google.com/p/qhocr/ - a project using the library, says nothing significant about the library again a trivial mention
  7. http://appsv.ocrgrid.org/hocr/ - an online servie usign the library, again says nothing significant about it, so again is a trivial mention
  8. http://hspell.ivrix.org.il/ - The target of the link doesn't seem to mention hocr at all.
  9. http://www.isoc.org.il/open/grants_2005.html - Provides no significant coverage (doesn't appear to mention the software by name)
  10. http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-3208550,00.html - as previous source
  11. http://wiki.hamakor.org.il/index.php/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8 - Appears to be a wiki, passing mentions, seems to indicate the author has received same awards but not the software itself.
  12. http://osdc.org.il/2006/talk_76.html - Trivial mention.
  13. http://august.penguin.org.il/node/17 - can't evalute
  14. http://hocr.berlios.de/code/man-hocr.html - Is the same as the second source

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It was deleted for lack of sourcing, which means the existing content fails WP:V. If the OP believes sources exist they can re-write the article. Miami33139 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm the original author of the article. The article was re-written with sources. Malik Shabazz re-quick-deleted it because he believe the new article is also not notable. The question is, what are the rules for notability of an article about software and free-software. If the rules for software are the same as the rules for a famous person, then this article is not notable, because their are no news article in big newspapers about it. On the other hand, If the rules of notability for software are about being famous withing a big users group or a uniqueness in features, then this article has references to prove notability. Kzamir (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Primary_criteria Nutshell: Significant coverage in reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This article is about software and not about companies_and_corporations. In rule A7 for speedy deletion of articles there is a distinction between organizations and software, This distinction apply here too. Also even in the criteria for companies there is a note "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability". If this is true for companies it can also apply for free-software. Kzamir (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The community never agreed secondary criteria for software, as such the general notability guidline applies. Again it requires significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. As I brokedown above most of the links are trivial in nature or not independant. Essentially if it is notable then the world would have noticed it to such a degree that reliable third party sources would of course have wanted to write about it in some level of detail. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Software_notability : "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: ... It has won a recognized award that is reported in multiple general interest sources;..." [15] [16] "... technical significance by multiple reliable sources,..." [17] [18] [19] Kzamir (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
          • That'll be the one which has the big red X at the top with the text "This is a failed guideline. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable amount of time.". As I said the community never agreed secondary criteria for software. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
            • The other view Wikipedia:Notability_(software) is more lenient "...It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software,..." , consensus must bee somewhere between those two views. Kzamir (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
              • The over view with the big red cross at the top saying "This is not a wikipedia policy and should not be used as a basis for article inclusion" that's pretty unambiguous --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Even if we apply it, the first two links still don't mention the software and it doesn't mean award in the sense of financial grant anyway. And the last three are software packages which use the library, they aren't reliable sources making claims about the technical significant of the software. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment WP:Notability (software) is the closest (imho) to current consensus on software notability. The reason WP:Software notability failed was not due to leniency, but rather due to it being too strict. I have solicited opinions from both supporters and opponents of Wp:Software notability and the language of WP:Notability (software) is at least amiable to both sides. The section quoted in this context is merely a "common sense" clause that states that all cases should be taken in consideration of its circumstances, such as "example, example, example". Notability should still be considered in context, and any and all discussions should rely primarily on approved guidelines and policies until WP:Notability (software) is promoted to or declined as a policy. That being said, there are many essays on wikipedia such as WP:CREEP, WP:DUCK, etc. that aren't policy, but do hold their impact (however lightly) on discussions. Remember, rules are principles. Editors should avoid relying on perceived laws, instead commenting on the merits of the page itself in context of it's circumstances. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note At the begining of this discussion Miami33139 suggested that if the OP believes sources exist they can re-write the article. The re-write with the sources was speedy deleted by Malik Shabazz using WP:CSD#G4 . Since the re-write was very different from the original version deleted by User:NJA after this WP:Articles for deletion/HOCR (software) discussion . I will re-post the version with the sources as suggested by Miami33139. The notability issue may be unclear, but it is not a reason for speedy delete ( WP:Speedy_Delete#Articles ) and not a reason for WP:CSD#G4. Kzamir (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Battrick

Battrick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted for no reliable sources, there are now 3 sources available that I can find: [20], [21], [22]. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 04:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore passes WP:WEB which was the reason for the deletion in the first place. Also easily passed 1st nomination. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 11:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rewrite based on sources Wikipedia is a source based project. There is no need to undelete a low quality page when you can re-write a source based article. Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rewrite from sources enough sources to justify inclusion. ~AH1^(TCU) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the new sources appear to address the earlier issues Dave of Darwin (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)