Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Anti-Lamenessing Engine

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 No consensus, so kept by default. Yomangani^talk 10:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Lamenessing Engine

It seems to not meet any of the criteria under WP:SOFTWARE. GinaDana 05:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clearly doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even though WP:SOFTWARE is a still-evolving proposal, not a guideline, and should not be treated as an actual guideline yet, this article fails any reasonable test of WP:NOTE, which is a guideline. see below Xtifr _tälk 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Page is still quite new (far from complete). Subject is GPL software used in many Linux and FreeBSD distros. Not clear how it should be categorized. Could be as Software Application or as Software Component, as it is both a stand-alone command-line tool and a compiled-in part of ImageMagick

• Keep Neutral (see below), I didn't recognize the package because I've never seen its name spelled out before! As ALE, however, I'm quite familiar with it. It is indeed a standard component of a wide variety of systems, and as such, fully meets at least one WP:SOFTWARE criterion. Xtifr _tälk 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we perhaps relist this to get a more in-depth discussion about the article's notability now that a more common name for it has been established? GinaDana 08:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Titoxd^(?!?) 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if a reference can be found to backup the Linux/FreeBSD claim. --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• No vote but some data points: I checked the status of "ale" in Debian. It exists there, but in an old version that has not been updated in 2 years. No popular outrcy at this has materialized, save for a single polite nudge from a single user [1]. The Debian "popularity contest" statistics, based on about 18,000 users who vonlunteer automatic information about their installed packages, estimates that the "ale" package is used regularly on 30 of the 18,000 systems. There are about 5,700 packages in Debian that have higher estimates. Among packages with with similar scores we find nn, slashem and sendmail. (For comparison, a small program which I hacked together 9 months ago to scratch a personal itch and never advertized widely, certainly not notable, ranks at 8,400 with an estimated 12 regular users). The Imagemagick packages in Debian show no traces of including "ale" as a compiled-in part. Henning Makholm 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment ah well, in light of that, I've changed my vote (again) to neutral. It has been around for a long time, but I haven't used it in years, and it sounds like nobody much else is using it any more either. It might be worthy of an article for its historical interest, but I can't offer any references or sources, which is really what would be needed to justify saving it. I know I read an article about it once, but that was long ago, and I can't say where. Xtifr _tälk 09:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, many ALE users (including myself) compile it from source to get CPU-specific optimizations, so popcon isn't particularly useful. popcon is especially useless since the package is that far out of date. ALE is still useful, and I know a few people who use it regularly (including myself) -- it just seems that nobody writes about it when they do. 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.