mic_none

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

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xerlin

[edit]
Xerlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Cannot find anything significant on Google and appears to be discontinued. Sources provided in article are self-published. Laurent (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article...

  • It has been in existence for nearly 6 months and has been well viewed.
  • The Sources are not only self-published, one is even Japanese!
  • It is in existence to document a application which is still used in several products.
  • The application is open source, free and available to developers from the linked sites.
  • The article supplies additional info on the history of Merlot project/developers.
  • A WikiProject has selected it to be of note. Iamthenewno2 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a preliminary search via Google Books and turned up 6 books. A Google search shows this is an active project, so I can't see how it would appear to be discontinued? I'm unsure as to what search terms the nominator tried but there seem to be plenty of books can that establish WP:RS. I'll include them here after I add them to citation templates. Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The app hasn't been updated in 4 years which is why it seems to be discontinued. I didn't notice that it was mentioned in books though, I've just searched for reviews or news on Google but couldn't find any. Laurent (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really is not too long in terms of open source software. Releases happen as needed when needed and as developers are able to dedicate time. It really isn't considered unusual if a stable or mature project goes long periods of time between releases (even years). Did you happen to check if the source code repository is in active use? Tothwolf (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any write transactions since 2005 (since the project is on SF.net actually). With a total of 40,000 downloads over 4 years, it seems to me like a rather obscure project. My own SF project has nearly the same amount of downloads in just 7 months and I wouldn't consider that it's very notable. Laurent (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about obscure, but it is a highly specialized field. There seem to be plenty of references available for this particular software and it has been written about in books related to this field. The article needs editorial work but I see no reason for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing XML is certainly not a highly specialized field. However, following your changes and addition of the Apple.com source (which I missed in my search), I'm ok with letting it stay on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apple source was already in the article, I just formatted it and added a citation template. It was linked in external links. Tothwolf (talk) 12:48, 15 May 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.