Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSnapshot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KSnapshot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable software; no claim to notability provided, no references given to establish notability. Listed for AfD after {{prod}} removed, though article remains unimproved. Mikeblas (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be an official tool of KDE [1], or at least relevant to KDE... even not counting that, I don't believe in deleting articles about software products based on "notability", people seem to forget that there is no policy regarding that, only guidelines... SF007 (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article doesn't meet the GNG, and reads as an advertisement. It's also completely unreferenced, original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Describing self-evident features of some software is not OR. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. It isn't? Where do the Wikipedia policies establish that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The software itself is a primary source. WP:OR does not disallow the use of primary sources for independently verifiable facts, only for interpretation. Since functionality and features can be independently verified by anyone downloading the software (and especially as the software is freely available), giving these in the article is therefore not OR. And frankly, even if WP:OR didn't say this explicitely, I'd say it's pretty much common sense -- do you need a citation to say that a human hand usually has five fingers? -- simxp (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't want an article that tells me a "human hand usually has five fingers". How often is "usually"? Once we assign a number to it, we certainly need references. But I can't figure out how this is relevant; this article offers "facts" that aren't readily verifiable, and aren't sourced in the article. Even if OR is solved, the problem of notability remains. Both would be solved together, given meaningful and substantial references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the best piece of wiki-lawyering I've seen in a long time. A statement like "99.8% of humans have 5 fingers on each hand" surely needs a citation, but a common-sense statement like "a human hand usually has five fingers" certainly doesn't need one. Compare Polydactyly with Human_hand#Variation. Case dismissed. VG ☎ 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't want an article that tells me a "human hand usually has five fingers". How often is "usually"? Once we assign a number to it, we certainly need references. But I can't figure out how this is relevant; this article offers "facts" that aren't readily verifiable, and aren't sourced in the article. Even if OR is solved, the problem of notability remains. Both would be solved together, given meaningful and substantial references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The software itself is a primary source. WP:OR does not disallow the use of primary sources for independently verifiable facts, only for interpretation. Since functionality and features can be independently verified by anyone downloading the software (and especially as the software is freely available), giving these in the article is therefore not OR. And frankly, even if WP:OR didn't say this explicitely, I'd say it's pretty much common sense -- do you need a citation to say that a human hand usually has five fingers? -- simxp (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. It isn't? Where do the Wikipedia policies establish that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Describing self-evident features of some software is not OR. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article doesn't meet the GNG, and reads as an advertisement. It's also completely unreferenced, original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree however that notability is hard to establish for this. Some window managers have built-in screenshot capabilities. I don't see how this function being a separate program for KDE makes it notable. A line or short paragraph in the page for KDE should suffice. Weak keep. Mentioned in half a dozed books along with the other KDE components. Gnome-screenshot is only mentioned in a couple. Alternatively, merging with the main KDE article avoids a forever-stubby article. YMMV. VasileGaburici (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that WP:N says that references to establish notability must offer "significant coverage". I don't think the offered references meet the spirit of that requirement. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with main KDE article, per VasileGaburici. --Banime (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There isn't any evidence of non-trivial coverage of this software product that I can find. Including the google books search. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Even though there are only guidelines regarding notability Wikipedia:Notability the sources established in the article are in direct violation of a Wikipedia Policy. That policy is WP:NOTMANUAL, the sources are merely manuals or guides on how to use KSnapshot, directly violating WP:NOTMANUAL.Twkratte (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand what WP:NOTMANUAL is about. That policy prevents Wikipedia itself from becoming a manual. It does not prevent Wikipedia from citing books that are intended as manuals. VG ☎ 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if an article is writen like a manual, if should just be deleted? So if the Ubuntu article was writen like a manual (like someone suggested some time ago), that was a valid reason for deletion? I think that is a very flawed reason for deletion... SF007 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never wrote that WP:NOTMANUAL is absolute grounds for deleting an article. If an article can be adjusted/rewritten so it's not a WP:NOTMANUAL, then it should be kept. For instance, if I write a "How to install Ubuntu" article on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted because there's no way to rewrite that narrow topic in an encyclopedic manner. OTOH, if the article on "Ubuntu" has some howto parts, those can be rewritten/deleted; there's no point in deleting the whole article, which would be throwing the baby out with the water in that case. I hope I made myself clear. VG ☎ 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying to User:Twkratte... sorry about the misunderstanding... it's my fault... I made the reply in a bad place... SF007 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never wrote that WP:NOTMANUAL is absolute grounds for deleting an article. If an article can be adjusted/rewritten so it's not a WP:NOTMANUAL, then it should be kept. For instance, if I write a "How to install Ubuntu" article on Wikipedia, then it should be deleted because there's no way to rewrite that narrow topic in an encyclopedic manner. OTOH, if the article on "Ubuntu" has some howto parts, those can be rewritten/deleted; there's no point in deleting the whole article, which would be throwing the baby out with the water in that case. I hope I made myself clear. VG ☎ 10:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if an article is writen like a manual, if should just be deleted? So if the Ubuntu article was writen like a manual (like someone suggested some time ago), that was a valid reason for deletion? I think that is a very flawed reason for deletion... SF007 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or Merge per VasileGaburici. -- Banjeboi 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually, merge into a unified article describing all the KDE utilities that aren't quite notable enough for their own article (possibly by expanding List of KDE applications to give a short paragraph about each application?). Until then, Keep so that the merging editors have something to merge and don't have to rewrite it all themselves. -- simxp (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easy google search found this article http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000156, and this one http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000056 . It's an integral part of the KDE stack, and many users (Not Wikipedians specifically) find this App very useful. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. These references are thinly disguised blog entries. Are we sure they establish notability, and are viable per WP:REF? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tux Magazine is a reliable source among the Linux user community for topic coverages, and it does exert editorial control over content. So, they may be blog entries, but they have been vetted by an editor. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by PS. An eventual merge, as proposed above, likely makes sense. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above SF007 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or certainly at the very least merge. Unforgiven24 (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above coverage in reliable sources. As a KDE user I've used it and seen it discussed a bunch of times, but of course the sources are more important than anecdotal evidence. Merging might not be the best option, but I don't have a major objection. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (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.