Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolatey (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chocolatey_(2nd_nomination)

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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolatey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The 2016 AfD consensus was to merge this article to NuGet. This was done but in the past week, an IP editor has deleted the merged text from the target [1] and reverted the redirect on this article. The product has continued to be developed (to version 0.11.2, according to the revived article), so rather than revert the IP actions, a new AfD may be appropriate, though I am not seeing the subsequent substantial coverage that would be needed to overturn the previous decision. AllyD (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good enough for me. – K4rolB (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was merge to NuGet.

Previous discussions: 2016-04 (closed as merge to NuGet)

Logs: 2015-05 ✗ G6 ← 2009-01 ✗ G2

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the sources listed above, the two PCWorld items were considered in the previous AfD, the ZDnet item references a paragraph in a Microsoft blog [2] which summarises this and other package managers. Are that and the brief LinuxJournal piece from 2017 sufficient to overturn the previous consensus and establish specific notability? AllyD (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NuGet per WP:ATD and its information can be summarized in the main article. Maybe tagging the redirect with {{r with possibilities}} is possible. – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chocolatey is a package manager for installing executable binaries, like Homebrew, while NuGet is a dependency manager for developer libraries, like RubyGems. The version of Chocolatey that was based directly on NuGet was deprecated and fact that it uses nuspec files is simply an implementation detail. The links in both AFDs and these:

establish notability. Galagora (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The suggestions to merge this with Nuget show a fundamental misunderstanding on what Chocolatey is. Chocolatey is the package manager for Windows and while it is based on Nuget, it is not Nuget. As an employee of Chocolatey, my intention is to keep this page up to date now I know it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paubyuk (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NuGet per above. The sources given in the "keep" !votes don't inspire confidence of being able to write a detailed, neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very substantial coverage in PC World and meaningful coverage in Linux Journal. Every merge/delete supporter in this conversation has access to TWL that includes coverage on PC Pro, a little mention in InfoWorld that gives a sense of the tool's significance, and more PC World stuff—put the effort in, they've even got a new centralised search bar to make it easy for you. I'm not sure what other sources we expect to exist for software topics like these that are not technical enough to be the subject of academic literature. I came here because it's a command-line package manager that I've heard of, which is a pretty good indication of substantial reach. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2021 (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.