Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bundle (software distribution) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bundle_(software_distribution)

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 keep. –MuZemike 05:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle (software distribution) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:OR on a concept – (added:) with a definition given that is synonymous with static compilation – which doesn't appear to meet WP:N. PROD contested in August shortly after creation. Pnm (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep It needs work. Concepts like these are relatively difficult to deal with, but the way to cope with the s difficulty is to encourage work on them. The current sourcing is inadequate. The claim of OR does not seem reasonable to be: the article is basically common sense. Whether it's enough of a specific topic would be seen if someone actually did attempt to work on it, and found they couldn't. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The link between bundle and static compilation is OR. The source doesn't even use the word. If a bundle is synonymous with static compilation we don't need this article, just a disambiguation link at Bundle. I don't see how the definition is common sense: in my experience a bundle is multiple pieces of software shipped together like Final Cut Studio. I'm all for encouraging people to work on articles like this, but until they can find a couple sources which directly address the topic, they should do it in userspace. --Pnm (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per DGG North8000 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It is a term commonly used in software distribution. Perhaps a bit difficult to deal with because the lack of specific documentation about it --El Pantera (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The concept of a bundle within software distribution is clearly notable. The issue is that it is one of those nebulous general topics, such as family or courage, though specifically for computers, which makes making a good article very difficult. That doesn't, however, change the fact that it is a notable concept. Silverseren^C 20:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  El Pantera, Seren, DGG: what is the topic you're asserting is notable? If you mean bundled software like Final Cut Studio or Adobe Creative Suite, I'll rewrite the article and say keep. If not, please give a definition. --Pnm (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article gives this definition: "A bundle is a software package that contains a software and everything it needs to operate." That sounds like static compilation to me. Doesn't sound like Final Cut Studio/Adobe Creative Suite. That definition would be something like, "In software distribution, a bundle is a set of software packages which are sold together." Please clarify exactly what definition is "notable." --Pnm (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. Er the keep side need to show a policy based reason if the argument that this isn't sourced is to be overcome... I can see that this may be a common-sense based one rather then sticking to the strict letter of policy but even so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete even though this could potentially be an article WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so there must be some actual verifiable and properly sourced encyclopedia-worthy content added, though. Right now it's just WP:OR. -Rushyo ^Talk 18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I'm not even sure the definition is correct. Bundle can have multiple meanings from bundling suites of application software to bundling software with a hardware or OS release. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (or Keep) A nontrivial term; should at least be merged into a related article on software distribution. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A nontrivial term meaning what? I've suggested two completely unrelated possibilities: (1) a program which is statically compiled, or (2) a set of software packages which are sold together? – Pnm (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I boldly rewrote the article based on a completely different definition. Soon after I prepared to move it and discovered that, with the new definition, it duplicates Bundled software which is a disambiguation page. If the new definition stands, I'll update my recommendation to an optional merge to convert bundled software to a stub, along with a redirect. Since the appropriate course requires consensus on the topic of the article I asked the non-admin closer to reopen it. (I request relisting to find out if anyone objects to the new definition.) – Pnm (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, what you mean is that you want to redirect/merge this article to Bundled software and then turn that article into a detailed general overview article that discusses and links to the full articles on the various types of bundled software? If that is what you meant, then I am in agreement with this proposal, because it keeps the content, will have a redirect that directs readers to an article that discusses what they are looking for, and will also direct said readers to other, more specific forms of the overall subject. Silverseren^C 04:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's it. – Pnm (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2011 (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.