Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anki

Anki

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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.[reply]

Delete as not notable. --Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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.[reply]

Weak delete. Yes, there's the coverage at Lifehacker, but it's only one source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ——C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 included in the April 2008 issue of the German c't magazine. It also ships with 3 of the major Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian). You can find it talked about on many language learning forums. Perhaps not arguments for notability in wikipedia's official guidelines, but a demonstration of notability none the less. 58.3.182.104 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and no proper references 114.158.117.221 (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Weak Keep; Whilst the mass of language blog reviews may not be enough to tip the notability scales, I believe this article in The Hindu lends a bit of weight. I'll continue to look for sources, but for the moment it's still a weak one. Not too impressed by the very pointy nom and the gaggle of associated SPAs, but I guess what I'm even less impressed with is the possibility of this being some corporate tit-for-tat, following the Crammage AFD. one brave monkey 07:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the coverage in The Hindu isn't the most expansive, it tells me that coverage is out there, and coupled with the mention in c't (which I have not seen to verify), the article should be improved rather than deleted.

I agree with Onebravemonkey's assessment that this nomination is tit-for-tat over the deletion of Crammage; however, I don't think it's a bad-faith nomination, so I'm considering the matter solely on the issue of notability and verifiability of this article. Precendent may be useful as a guideline, but other stuff exists, so articles have to be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; An Anki screenshot is the screenshot image on Wikipedia's own Spaced Repetition page, and Anki is widely recognized as the only FOSS alternative to SuperMemo. While I agree that Spaced Repetition itself may be a small field, Anki is a major player in that small field. If Anki does not meet Notability guidelines, then neither does the Spaced Repetition learning technique. In fact, the Spaced Repetition page links to Sebastian Leitner, Cecil Alec Mace, the Pimsleur language learning system, and Paul Pimsleur, all of which should be deleted for non-Notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotancohen (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Mnemosyne_(software) is also a notable FOSS alternative to SuperMemo, and has been around for longer than Anki - so I wouldn't call Anki the 'only' alternative.58.3.182.104 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]