Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellarium

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. — CharlotteWebb 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarium[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Memmke 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per nom. nn software... SkierRMH,10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewrite has shown complies with WP:Software SkierRMH 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below. MER-C 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep - it meets the WP:SOFTWARE because it is part of Debian Unstable[1] and Gentoo portage[2], and it yields 586000 google hits (-wikipedia!). qwm 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oh, and it's in Fedora Extras too[3] qwm 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ..and FreeBSD Ports [4] qwm 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a well written article that meets Wikipedia standards. Red1530 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as highly notable and easily passing WP:SOFT. 810,000 Google results. Almost rivals Celestia in popularity. --Czj 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral several comments here - most, if not all of the google links are to software directories. Most popular open source projects usually feature mailing list or forum chatter on the first few Google results pages. While not a valid test per WP:RS, a lack of these sort of results usually indicates a non-notable open source project. Secondly, as per WP:SOFTWARE, inclusion in the distributions mentioned does not immediately infer notablity. In particular, Debian Unstable, Fedora Extras and BSD Ports are additional sets of packages that are distributed seperately from their respective core distributions. Most code that successfully compiles and is properly licensed passes the inclusion test for these extra distributions. I also dispute the un-sourced claim that the software is as popular as Celestia. Regardless, I remain neutral as WP:SOFTWARE is not policy, and any notability inferred by the inclusion of the package in the distributions is subject to interpetation. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And most Google links for Windows probably point to unreliable Microsoft press releases, spammy web stores, and random blog posts where people discuss in excruciating detail how much Windows sucks. =) Secondly, Debian Unstable is not an "additional" repository of packages; it's simply the work-in-progress version of the next stable release of the operating system. Debian does not categorise software apart of saying this particular piece of software is "optional" (i.e., "this piece of software is not critical to the operation of your system, and, unless you want to look at stars and stuff, you may remove this thing safely"); "optional" label goes to a huge bunch of software. In the current Debian Popularity Contest (ranked by installs), which is specifically listed on WP:SOFTWARE as one way of gauging the popularity of open-source software, Stellarium is ranked #4522 out of 61036 packages, which is a very respectable rating. (Hint: mediawiki1.7 is currently ranked #7720, and surprise surprise, is "optional" as well...) I also wager that the "extras" packages in other Linux/BSD distributions cover a whole lot of stuff that is nevertheless very widely-used; Linux distributions are package-based and people tend to just install applications they need, even if it means admitting "oh poop, I need to point my installer to this extra package repository too, just to get the one I need". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's a very popular piece of software, and well known example of its type. As noted above, it has a respectable Debian popcon rating. And besides, if the local university's astronomy course lecturer just happens to use it and recommend it to everyone, it has to be good. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wwwwolf. --midkay 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is notable software and it's a good article. Pete Fenelon 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was the sourceforge project of the month for May 2006 if that doesnt qualify as notable I dont know what does! Htaccess 23:24, 26 November 2006 (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.