Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Studio (IDE)

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. Consensus seems to be that there is nothing that suggests that it might be notable. If reliable sources appear, please contact me, and I will be happy to undelete or userfy the article. NW (Talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Studio (IDE)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG; no coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources. Considering it's run by "people ages 12 to 18" I can't see that happening soon, no offence. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good software can in fact be developed by young people. You should not underestimate them. --Programble (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it can't, I'm just saying that the chances of people like big newspapers, professional websites and academic journals taking notice is slim. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, adding it to wikipedia wouldn't be a good start for it....? This isn't fake....:( Moonwolf14 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it works the other way around. We require significant coverage before we have an article on Wikipedia, not an article to generate coverage elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good software can infact come from young people, but this just seems like an advertisement. Dom96 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The advertising tone was copy-edited away (I hope) --Mokhov (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage by verifiable, reliable sources Bfigura ^(talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as above <User :Bfigura > Rirunmot (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a very nice IDE, but seems like a case of WP:SCRABBLE. If notable, needs sources; if not, needs deleting. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: WP:N does indeed seem to be a problem. I tried improving the article a bit, but I think WP:USERFY is more appropriate here for now until the IDE and the article mature. --Mokhov (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfication is for articles that could be good with tweaking, not for articles that might be notable in a several years thanks to your gazing into the depths of your crystal ball. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere WP:USERFY supports your statement, Ironholds. WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable in the user space (e.g. if I say in my user space about my PhD degree that I am still working towards to, but don't hold yet, won't classify my that user page for deletion based on WP:CRYSTAL alone). --Mokhov (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense - we userfy articles primarily so that they can be worked on. However much you work on this, it isn't going to be notable. General rule of thumb I use is that if you know you could kill it with an MfD, it isn't appropriate in the userspace. If you say you're doing a PhD, that isn't WP:CRYSTAL. On the other hand, if you justify keeping a full biography of you in your userspace with "I'm working on a PhD and some interesting research, so I will eventually be notable", that is. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The youth angle makes this article more interesting than it would be otherwise. --AStanhope (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an argument that cites some form of policy or guideline and actually explains how the article passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 03:40, 14 September 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.