On 1/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
RoboGeo: the sources include two articles that are not written by its creators. One of those is even a book.
Well, the originally CSDed article didn't contain those sources. The current article does.
However, this seems to suggest that any article which doesn't contain two sources (or at least claim that two sources exist) is a CSD. In that respect it seems too easy to remove any article (speedily, at that) by wikilawyering about lack of sources.
I don't like how there's little content there and how it has a big "download here" sign, but I'd give it a chance due to the fact it has independant sources.
The software guidelines probably need to be stricter and more specific so for example random flash games without a lot of visitors and/or a widespead cult status are excluded.
They also need to be a lot less strict for software which does something useful, in my opinion. [[RoboGEO]] doesn't seem like it would pass [[WP:SOFTWARE]] by any stretch of the imagination (it most likely isn't the subject of any published works aside from some websites, and it's Windows software so it has no prayer of being included in a major operating system distribution).
Of course, maybe there is a consensus that only the most famous software programs belong in Wikipedia. If that's true, then WP:SOFTWARE should just be made a policy, as opposed to a proposed guideline, and people who wish to write wiki articles about non-famous software can move somewhere else. Incidentally, does anyone know of some good wikis that definitely do allow this sort of thing?
Anthony