 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 January 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Master Navigator Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Currently the sources in the article do not establish notability. The current sources on the article include 2 references to the company's website, a youtube video demonstrating the software and a google map that show where the company is headquartered. In my searches through google I could not find any reliable sources to add to the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep MNS has steady and constantly crowing list of users all over the world. It is a special commercial navigation software and has been 4 years in Wikipedia now (since 13:05, 5 August 2006). There is also a book about MNS coming from an independent writer. Jannej (talk) 16 December 2010
- None of above shows notability. What we need to show that the software is notable is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Up to this point I have looked a couple of times and have not been able to find any sources. You have been working on this article for 4 years and haven't come up with a single reliable source. There is nothing here to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a new article by "Exo Cruiser" who has been using MNS for years. And the book is coming soon. That is notability! Maybe some other MNS user wants to write about it also? I have to check. I think I have been in Wikipedia twice as long as you have and probably been using computers long before you were even born. I built my first computer 1977. Jannej (talk) 18 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- To begin with, our respective ages, how long we have editing Wikipedia or using computers have nothing to do with whether MNS is notable software. The book while it may help show notability in the future, currently it does not show notability. The new article by "Exo Cruiser" is a possibility. Can you add the article as a reference in the article? If you can that might help show notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I did that. Jannej (talk) 20 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I looked at the new source and it doesn't help establish notability of MNS either. The article is about XTE. It only uses MNS as the platform to show what XTE means. We really need independent sources where the subject of the article/book is MNS. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I did that. Jannej (talk) 20 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- To begin with, our respective ages, how long we have editing Wikipedia or using computers have nothing to do with whether MNS is notable software. The book while it may help show notability in the future, currently it does not show notability. The new article by "Exo Cruiser" is a possibility. Can you add the article as a reference in the article? If you can that might help show notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a new article by "Exo Cruiser" who has been using MNS for years. And the book is coming soon. That is notability! Maybe some other MNS user wants to write about it also? I have to check. I think I have been in Wikipedia twice as long as you have and probably been using computers long before you were even born. I built my first computer 1977. Jannej (talk) 18 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- None of above shows notability. What we need to show that the software is notable is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Up to this point I have looked a couple of times and have not been able to find any sources. You have been working on this article for 4 years and haven't come up with a single reliable source. There is nothing here to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can put more references as soon as I find them my self and they are available. Maybe we should put there a message that any help to improve the article is welcome? Let's take an other example.. what notability has the following article? Repeater? I would say nothing more than what I have written! You make an album maybe in 2 months time or a book in one years time but to make a program like MNS is must take at least 10 years! That is the difference. Nowadays when living the computer and Internet age you can not say that printed material only adds notability. BTW, MNS uses proj.4 which is very well known projection platform. Maybe I should put some references to it? Jannej (talk) 22 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- We don't need to add a notice that help is appreciated because that is wikipedia ia about that anyone is able and encouraged to update any article. Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The sources do not need to be printed to be acceptable as evidence of notability, the source can be in any media as long as they comes from a reliable source, provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article." - you are telling - of course it is! This proves exactly that you are just hunting this single article due to some of your personal reasons which are not known to me. If something is to be deleted then the deletion needs to have some common rules. You seem only to be willing to do sabotache? This article has at least as much notability as the other article referenced and should be kept if that and thousands of other articles should be kept. Me it is clear that you are just hunting this single article due to some personal reasons or to a random vandalism syndrome (RVS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannej (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no ulterior motives. I suggested before you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but you should pay particular attention to WP:OTHERSTUFF. This discussion is about the article not about anyone's motives. I am now going to disengage from this discussion and let others comment if they want to. Good luck. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I don't know you well I have to just make assumptions: It is for example possible that you are some kind of a GB (Great Britain?) fan (fanatical enthusiast or supporter?) and that maybe you are somehow connected to some competing navigation software (in GB?). And of course it is then very understandable why you would like to delete this particular article. Deleting this would then do a favor to the other navigation software. And fans usually do like that when they fanatically support something and that would then be your motive. But I understand that Wikipedia tries to give people neutral information based on facts and not on personal likes or dislikes and this article should then be kept. And of course the book will soon add more to this and there are other reasons also. Jannej (talk) 26.12.2010 —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You are right since you don't know me you need assume something. You can assume I have ulterior motives (as you did) or you can assume good faith. If you want to see what the GB fan is about you can look in my 1st talk page archive where someone asked the question and I responded. Just to let you know it has nothing to do with Great Britain and I have no interest in any other mapping software, I came across this article and tried to provide sourcing for the article to improve it but could not find any so I nominated it for deletion according to Wikpedia policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I don't know you well I have to just make assumptions: It is for example possible that you are some kind of a GB (Great Britain?) fan (fanatical enthusiast or supporter?) and that maybe you are somehow connected to some competing navigation software (in GB?). And of course it is then very understandable why you would like to delete this particular article. Deleting this would then do a favor to the other navigation software. And fans usually do like that when they fanatically support something and that would then be your motive. But I understand that Wikipedia tries to give people neutral information based on facts and not on personal likes or dislikes and this article should then be kept. And of course the book will soon add more to this and there are other reasons also. Jannej (talk) 26.12.2010 —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I have no ulterior motives. I suggested before you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but you should pay particular attention to WP:OTHERSTUFF. This discussion is about the article not about anyone's motives. I am now going to disengage from this discussion and let others comment if they want to. Good luck. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article." - you are telling - of course it is! This proves exactly that you are just hunting this single article due to some of your personal reasons which are not known to me. If something is to be deleted then the deletion needs to have some common rules. You seem only to be willing to do sabotache? This article has at least as much notability as the other article referenced and should be kept if that and thousands of other articles should be kept. Me it is clear that you are just hunting this single article due to some personal reasons or to a random vandalism syndrome (RVS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannej (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need to add a notice that help is appreciated because that is wikipedia ia about that anyone is able and encouraged to update any article. Examples of other articles that do not show notability existing on wikipedia is not a reason to keep this article. You should probably read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The sources do not need to be printed to be acceptable as evidence of notability, the source can be in any media as long as they comes from a reliable source, provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can put more references as soon as I find them my self and they are available. Maybe we should put there a message that any help to improve the article is welcome? Let's take an other example.. what notability has the following article? Repeater? I would say nothing more than what I have written! You make an album maybe in 2 months time or a book in one years time but to make a program like MNS is must take at least 10 years! That is the difference. Nowadays when living the computer and Internet age you can not say that printed material only adds notability. BTW, MNS uses proj.4 which is very well known projection platform. Maybe I should put some references to it? Jannej (talk) 22 December 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete; not notable. Apart from content written by the software distributors, I can only find one passing mention in a blog, and the briefest of namechecks in lists of navigational software. Those are not enough to establish notability for software. bobrayner (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (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.