186:
feature article on the EGEE project site that another publication can point to. I have examined the software package and its current state of software packaging appears in rather early stage of development as well (just a tarball of only source files), but had no problem compiling it. The manual is actually more detailed than for many other free software projects, but not bundled with the software directly.
204:
includes references to the tool, but I don't know if it is relevant since I wrote it also. Actually my first idea was that currently no other tool could do what this tool does, so being an
Encyclopedia, Knowledge could refer to it. But maybe this is not the right place for this since the tool is very
185:
There is no doubt that software of this kind is useful in the conversion and debugging of legacy IPv4 software in the new IPv6 world. However, WP notability requirements demand more and the author is encouraged to seek independent coverage of this software in the trade press, starting perhaps with a
166:
requires significant, independent third party coverage in a reliable source. I was not able to find any such sources referencing this software. EDUBLE's estimation that the software "could be useful for many people" (which may be a biased estimation, as he is the product's author) is not really
144:
I think this software could be useful for many people. It is currently being used by a very large european research project, called
Enabling Grids for E-SciencE. WikiDan61, I understood that you think this project is a "non-notable software product", but can you tell why?
268:. I can't see this software being of interest to any but a small group of professional programmers. Any reviews are likely to circulate only in trade publications or trade websites, and that sort of specialist material doesn't make a good case for notability. -
243:- A small mention in a document doesn't constitute significant independent coverage. It doesn't matter how important or useful the software might be, the threshold for inclusion on Knowledge is Notability and this is demonstrated by coverage. --
284:
Actually, reviews in specialist journals and trade publications would denote notability for specialist software. But in this case, there's no coverage of it in general publications or specialist publications so
120:
219:
167:
relevant. "Could be useful" is not the criterion for notability; significant third party coverage (in a trade journal, perhaps) is required.
201:
174:
134:
17:
255:
87:
82:
229:
127:
Non-notable software product. Article had been PROD'ed, but that was removed (by the author). So, here we are at AfD.
91:
321:- There is no need to do anything. An administrator will decide on the outcome at the end of 5 days of discussion. --
74:
347:
36:
346:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
226:
163:
151:
330:
309:
298:
277:
260:
234:
209:
195:
178:
155:
138:
78:
56:
251:
70:
62:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
306:
273:
206:
202:
https://edms.cern.ch/file/980424/1/EGEE-III-SA2-TEC-980424-ZSI_IPv6_Compliance_Test-v1.1.pdf
191:
146:
326:
294:
168:
128:
245:
50:
108:
269:
187:
322:
290:
305:
I am OK about deleting it until it gets notability. What's the next step?
340:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
350:). No further edits should be made to this page.
220:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
218:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
331:11:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
310:08:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
299:15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
278:16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
261:10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
235:01:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
210:07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
196:18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
179:17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
156:17:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
139:16:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
57:02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
367:
162:The general guideline on
343:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
200:The EGEE document at
154:comment was added at
241:Delete - Not notable
44:The result was
237:
232:
223:
358:
345:
230:
224:
214:
171:
159:
147:User talk:EDUBLE
131:
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
366:
365:
361:
360:
359:
357:
356:
355:
354:
348:deletion review
341:
270:Smerdis of Tlön
177:
169:
149:
137:
129:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
364:
362:
353:
352:
336:
335:
334:
333:
313:
312:
302:
301:
281:
280:
263:
238:
212:
198:
183:
182:
181:
173:
133:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
363:
351:
349:
344:
338:
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
253:
248:
247:
242:
239:
236:
233:
228:
221:
217:
213:
211:
208:
203:
199:
197:
193:
189:
184:
180:
176:
172:
165:
164:WP:notability
161:
160:
157:
153:
148:
143:
142:
141:
140:
136:
132:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
342:
339:
318:
286:
265:
249:
244:
240:
215:
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
150:—Preceding
170:WikiDan61
130:WikiDan61
71:IPv6 CARE
63:IPv6 CARE
246:Kraftlos
175:ReadMe!!
135:ReadMe!!
121:View log
256:Contrib
152:undated
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
307:EDUBLE
287:Delete
266:Delete
207:EDUBLE
188:Kbrose
116:delete
92:delete
46:delete
319:Reply
289:. --
205:new.
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
327:talk
323:Whpq
295:talk
291:Whpq
274:talk
252:Talk
231:ping
227:Pcap
216:Note
192:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
225:--
222:.
329:)
297:)
276:)
254:|
194:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
325:(
293:(
272:(
258:)
250:(
190:(
158:.
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.