Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphics Layout Engine Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graphics_Layout_Engine

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 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Layout Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I found no significant coverage. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could not establish notability either. --Kvng (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - search reveals a lot of WP:NSOFT-compliant sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you post them? I couldn't easily find them. – Pnm (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The first three I could find with a couple of seconds: [1], [2] and [3]. I have no interest in actually searching references for this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those appear to be reliable sources, and I don't think they provide significant coverage either. – Pnm (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a brief second search in one search engine, which proves the ability of development for this software. Furthermore, it is used in other products, so more detail search can reveal more links. I don't think that "I don't care" is a good reason to make any actions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked for better sources, but didn't find anything suitable. There's nothing in Books except Wikipedia books. One bullet point on one set of slides in Scholar. I agree that "I don't care" isn't a good reason to delete, but it's not a good reason to keep, either. – Pnm (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Pnm, why do you not consider these to be reliable? They look pretty good to me. I now understand what GLE is. I have withdrawn my vote until I hear back. --Kvng (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither self-published sources such as blogs nor sites which provide user-generated content are normally considered reliable sources. See Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. – Pnm (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. – Pnm (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added three additional references to GLE's page. As far as I know, there is no official book about GLE. Is this required for an open source software project to have earn an entry on Wikipedia? Janstruyf (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please sign Your comments! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there doesn't need to be an official book. The general notability guideline is explained pretty simply in this essay: WP:42. – Pnm (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The first reference is not independent of the subject. The second reference is a download page. The third reference is unreliable. The fourth reference is a download page. How does that show notability? SL93 (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the three references above - The first one is a blog. The second one is a blog. The third one allows news submissions from anyone. Really? SL93 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Changing vote. Czarkoff refs establish notability. My reading of WP:USERG does not disqualify them. People out there clearly think this is a useful utility. --Kvng (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SPS says "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable" and offers only two exceptions: (1) published experts and (2) sources writing about themselves. How does WP:USERG not disqualify all three of the sources Czarkoff posted? – Pnm (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not read the list of WP:USERG exceptions as exhaustive. The refs are a bit better than a blog or a forum. My personal criteria for WP:RS establishing notability is more permissive than for citations. --Kvng (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - GLE definitely worth an entry in Wikipedia. It's an active open-source software useful for documents producing. May be the actual entry should be completed with some examples of scripts and output results? --84.100.6.215 (talk) 08:33, 22 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.