Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traffic control next generation Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traffic_control_next_generation

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 Speedy delete. 19:06, 25 July 2009 Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) deleted "Traffic control next generation" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Maybe a section in Traffic shaping but not notable in and of itself) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic control next generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software package. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when i have question/idea/issue i go to read article about it in wikipedia first. not google or other search. i was a little bit in astonishment when i have found out that there is no article about TCNG.

traffic shaping is a complex topic and configuration/implementation of traffic shaping systems is not easy task. TCNG is not a small script which we could call "non-notable software". there is a deb package made for the tcng. it is included in debian and ubuntu software repositories.

from users perspective: using a simple tcng sample script i was able start a simple traffic shapping on my system in short time. though the input (tcng format) was rather easy to understand for me (a new user), the output was really complex and it could take many times longer to create it by hand.

also i think that this article would need more details (or even small sample) showing the usage of tcng. but maybe that will be added later (by me or other conributor).

by the way, how we actually differentiate if software is notable or not? Raigedas (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--non-notable software. No in-depth third-party reviews, etc. Wikipedia is neither a directory of all software (no matter how useful editors may find it nor how-to users' guide. For software usage, software's own docs would be authoritative. For samples, most software has an official website and an author who would love to include that type of information to help make the software more useful and popular (and keep all such info centralized). DMacks (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i agree. is there any wiki sister project where we could move this article to? Raigedas (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a site on Wikia, http://opensource.wikia.comhttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Free_and_Open_Source_Software_Wiki --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2009 (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.