Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KernelEx Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KernelEx

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KernelEx

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

Speedy contested with a suggestion to bring this to AfD, which is what I'm doing here. Software with no assertion of notability. Of the three sources used in the article, two are primary sources, and the third one is an entry on a blog. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is on cs-wiki. Googling with exclusion of sourceforge results gives 47 300 records. Keep. Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of specialty forum chatter around KernelEx, but no apparent coverage in reliable sources. Number of Google hits is not an argument for notability. Personally, I'd vote keep with even a tiny bit of coverage in reliable sources, given the heavy forum chatter, but in lieu of that I don't think there's really any valid alternative to deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an improvement made by enthusiasts to OSs which are now unsupported by Microsoft, so it's hard to find sources in professional publications, but it works. YouTube has proofs of working programs. Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While "it's hard to find sources in professional publications" is usually a valid argument for deletion if you look at the numerous precedents here, and remains one until such sources are found, "it works" is almost never taken into account in deletion discussions, even if you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Spectacular failures have a better chance of surviving than minor success stories. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources and no proof of historical significance (not so surprising, given that the project was nearly obsolete since its inception in March 2009). The chance that it will ever gain some notice is only decreasing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about enthusiasts of retrocomputing? Nikos 1993 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the subject article there would be a good solution, but reliable sources are required for that too. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally think this is a case where I would apply "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Nikos 1993 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't IAR away the requirement for reliable sources to ensure verifiability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficent reliable sources, as Ginsengbomb points out, for this to be kept or merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 22 August 2012 (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.