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. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glitz (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. See arguments of previous AFD. Ysangkok (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glitz might have been wiki-notable once, but it became irrelevant many years ago. Ysangkok said that notability has not been established, but I'd say that complete non-notability has been established. (BTW, I write as one who put some effort into the article.) CWC 11:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As was just pointed out to me again: Notability is not temporary (NTEMP). But note that this was already deemed not-notable once, before you recreated it. Would you admit that you only thought it was notable back then, because it seemed like an important piece of the 3D desktop fad which people thought would bring the ever-elusive year of the Linux desktop? This section is a joke: History of the graphical user interface#Current trends. I think the NTEMP guideline is problematic with software because a once-important component of infrastructure can be quickly replaced. Many software projects are engineering efforts that, even though they are the results of years of development are not notable. Others, more theoretical ones, are notable even though they are new. This is why I for example just added a section on the ECMAScript article about await/async, even though the standard is not yet released. In the JavaScript ecosystem, people are using draft standard features because they are already shipping before the standard is out. But these additions WILL be released with a standard release, and they can never be removed, unlike Glitz. People are using implementations, not standards. This is why I oppose these reverts: [1] and [2]. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that I thought Glitz was going to be notable, and (not for the first time) I was wrong.

As to why I edited the article: I came across it while trying to improve our articles about Cairo (graphics) and related FLOSS graphics infrastructure; since it took me a little effort to understand that stuff, I thought Wikipedia should provide an overview of those projects. You're right about NTEMP not working on lots of software projects.

Thanks again, Ysangkok. Cheers -- CWC 13:31, 31 January 2017 (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.