Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coccinella (software)
=[[Coccinella (software)]]=
:{{la|Coccinella (software)}} –
:({{findsources|Coccinella (software)}})
Non-notable and unsourced software. Article was tagged for notability and sources for nine months before being prodded. A user removed the prod, notabilty and unsourced tags from the article saying it had been sourced with a link to sourceforge. Appearing on sourceforge or in a XMPP directory do not show notability. Searching for sources does not show anything non-trivial on Google NEWS, BOOKS, or SCHOLAR. An article on pcquest mentions the software as a jabber client in a how-to article about setting up a jabber server. A paper on XMPP mentions three sentences that this software implemented an open source whiteboard, but it was too undocumented making difficult to port to other software. All other sources were about ladybugs. There is a software company called Coccinella Development Inc, but they produce flight training software, they are not the authors of this software, but get more google hits. In the end, it is up to the authors of this article to source it. They have the best chance to do so, had nine months to do so, and never did. Time to delete it for failing our inclusion criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:I know, being an anonymous user, that no one will take any notice of me, but I really must protest. Disk space is cheap, this software is as notable as many of the geographical articles that litter Wikipedia. ~ anon 8 December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.166.68.65 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with the anon IP above. By the way, your IP status doesn't make you powerless. I like to "anon-IP" because it exposes the dismissive, status-conscious, bullying users. It ultimately gives you the right kind of power - that of the actual sensibility of your own statements. :-)
::72.93.182.136 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
;DO NOT DELETE -- REMOVING FRIVOLOUS TAG
This is totally notable! I looked it up in fact because I had just learned of it and I wanted to know what Wikipedia had to say about it. I think this tag is a disservice. The tagger should have first discussed the possibility of deleting on the talk page. Give discussion a chance. I'm removing the tag (if I can as a lowly anon IP), if you are really hard over about this, please discuss it (or at least try to discuss it) on the talk page first.
72.93.182.136 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unable to locate coverage in independent reliable sources. I recommend the IPs check out WP:ATA and WP:N so that they might improve their arguments to be more compelling. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I am really hard about this. JBsupreme (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
: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.