- 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Analog (program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This apparently non-notable software has no references to back it up. It is difficult to try and find sources because there is other software called Analog that get hits. This is why article authors need to put sources in when they write the article. Miami33139 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @249 · 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. It is not actually all that hard to look for sources: search for "Stephen Turner" analog, and "web log analysis" analog, and so on. I have tried a few such searches and have not found anything that could remotely be called significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this open-source software was one of the original log analysis engines and remains available. That it is in a category that isn't covered by mainstream media (because it's boring, behind-the-scenes stuff) does not mean it is not notable; anyone who works with web analysis will be familiar with this program as it is extremely fast and highly configurable. I would add that "lack of references" is not a reason by itself to delete an article; if references can be found, that's usually the step to take before deletion. There are references; I've added two to the article. In addition, although I don't see a way (yet) to add these to the article, there are these hits: (from 2001), and [1]. There are more; I'll continue to work on the article. Frank | talk 13:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Log analysis software is available at www.analog.cx" Is that what counts as notable coverage now? Miami33139 (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I don't see that quote anywhere in the article. I do see three independent sources, though. Frank | talk 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the entirety of buzzle.com you just posted as a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. This is a discussion. Links here in this discussion are to support points being made here. I am not asserting that any link in this discussion should be construed as a full-blown reference in the article itself. There are three top-quality references there already. In addition, context is very important. The buzzle link shows Analog on a top-10 list of all cool things for web site designers and maintainers in 2001. Sure, the web was a smaller place back then, but combine its presence on a top-10 list with the fact that it's still around today and you have instant notability. Still - I'm not even relying on that to assert that this program is notable; I'm using it as support to show its longevity. That reference doesn't appear in the article. Frank | talk 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the entirety of buzzle.com you just posted as a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but I don't see that quote anywhere in the article. I do see three independent sources, though. Frank | talk 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Software is still used behind the scenes on assorted web hosts. Sure, it hasn't been updated in a while but the webserver log format hasn't changed either. References to various features are referenced - the software website has documentation for all to read. 125.0.82.119 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References supplied are all IT-related, and show neither general interest sources, nor claims of any particular technical or historical importance. Very simply, there's no reason anyone would have heard of this unless they're a website administrator, and Wikipedia is not a directory of every behind the scenes admin utility that might exist. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Since when do we follow essays over policies and guidelines? And, an essay under discussion and development, no less? Frank | talk 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And for what reasons exactly do "IT-related references" are not acceptable? That's like saying we can't use theoretical physics journals to reference theoretical physics article. That's just doesn't make any sense. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay referenced doesn't contradict the general notability guideline, which this article fails. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate how something can "fail" the WP:GNG? That guideline simply enumerates a series of ways an article is presumed to be notable rather than listing ways in which an article fails to be notable. This article is about a topic that will never be a generally notable program, but it does have historic notability as one of the earliest and longest-used of its genre, and for being noted in its field over the last decade (at least). There are already references dating back to 2000 in the article, more exist, including this one from 1998. It's been followed in MacWeek, CNET, Linux Journal, and similar industry magazines. Frank | talk 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay referenced doesn't contradict the general notability guideline, which this article fails. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when do we follow essays over policies and guidelines? And, an essay under discussion and development, no less? Frank | talk 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay linked above (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) has been almost entirely written by Miami33139 (history diff), the AfD nom here. That essay in its current form is not anywhere close to the original software notability guideline proposal. If that essay is to remain in its current form, needs to be renamed as it is not one of the notability guidelines. Some of the changes have removed long standing criteria which have always been accepted for software articles, and its text now even conflicts with WP:SELFPUB, which is a section of the verifiability policy. Other changes, such as the explicit wording that multiple sources are always required, conflicts with the WP:GNG section of the notability guideline itself, which states: "Multiple sources are generally preferred.". While not an issue here due to the multiple sources which are readily available and easily located, there is a huge difference between preferred in the GNG, and wording in the linked essay which indicates required. In addition to the other problems with the the software notability essay, many of the recent changes seem quite biased to me and appear to run afoul of the neutral point of view policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I drafted a good bit of the text of that essay. It is, also, different from the original proposal. It is also meant to set a higher bar to entry than the GNG does, the same way that some other current guidelines do.
My main concern is the volume of spam we're getting from minor tech businesses. What I wrote is meant to address the claim that sources with tiny audiences can confer notability on minor software. That's why it creates a two tiered standard: one, for consumer products that the general public might recognize, the other for tech sources, and the latter must show more than mere existence, some kind of technical or historical importance
To return to this software, it does seem that the age and depth of use of this particular product do support a claim of that kind of significance, and I'm therefore changing to keep. On the other hand, it seems to me that so far the essay is "working as intended". And I'd be happy to have further input on the essay itself as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I drafted a good bit of the text of that essay. It is, also, different from the original proposal. It is also meant to set a higher bar to entry than the GNG does, the same way that some other current guidelines do.
- The essay linked above (Wikipedia:Notability (software)) has been almost entirely written by Miami33139 (history diff), the AfD nom here. That essay in its current form is not anywhere close to the original software notability guideline proposal. If that essay is to remain in its current form, needs to be renamed as it is not one of the notability guidelines. Some of the changes have removed long standing criteria which have always been accepted for software articles, and its text now even conflicts with WP:SELFPUB, which is a section of the verifiability policy. Other changes, such as the explicit wording that multiple sources are always required, conflicts with the WP:GNG section of the notability guideline itself, which states: "Multiple sources are generally preferred.". While not an issue here due to the multiple sources which are readily available and easily located, there is a huge difference between preferred in the GNG, and wording in the linked essay which indicates required. In addition to the other problems with the the software notability essay, many of the recent changes seem quite biased to me and appear to run afoul of the neutral point of view policy. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sourcing done by Frank. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references, in my mind, show significant, independent coverage. While they are in technical journals, etc., it's still quite relevant for indicating notability. --Shirik (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Frank - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Frank & Tothwolf. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Analog is a wildly used free website stats analyzer. It is, among other things, included in the very popular Cpanel website manager suite. Moreover, Analog is one of the few analyzer suitable for very large scale deployment requiring very little resources in comparison with other analyzers that would need dedicated servers for stats analysis. See the AWstats benchmark page for a statement supporting this. BlanchardJ (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — BlanchardJ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - well known and important tool, GPL'd rather than commercial and hence not so easy to find from an armchair search. That doesn't mean it isn't noteable.--Brunnian (talk) 20:25, 15 December 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.