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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAPT (deployment software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and GNG. I can't find a critical mass of third-party reliable sources, nor any evidence that this software meets other plausible notability criteria (it does not appear to be a significant portion of computing history, is not taught in school, etc.). A couple brief reviews and how-to bits don't add up to notability. (sayeth 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco and I happen to agree.) Kleuske (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There seem to be some quacking noises coming from the article history... Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration of deletion of WAPT (software deployment)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_national_de_la_recherche_agronomique (This is a repost from Kleuse page):
I have seen that you have followed the conclusion of 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco in your conclusion. But like I said to 49ers., there is not only English speaking people in this world, and although WAPT is currently mostly running in a French speaking circles, it does not means that in the good'old Europe it has not crossed borders and gone in other countries. English is still the common tongue, and having an English version of the WAPT article, even though it is mostly for non native English speakers does not mean that it is not relevant.

Please, reconsider, thanks, Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.197.250.107 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons given in my original PROD echoed above by Kleuske. While this may be useful software, that doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If there are reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the software per GNG or WP:NSOFT I would be happy to change my position. But I couldn't find any and none have been produced. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other items like wpkg or chocolatey do not have the sources you request. How do you justify that? I added some external link. I ask to give up the suppression! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.105.125.212 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleuske, 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco, I have added to the article a history section and a usage in French school system section with references. Regarding the Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion that was referenced in the initial banner, I think that I have addressed at least two criterias :

• "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction" : I have added a reference of WAPT in the program of a university diploma. And yes WAPT is not used only in instruction.
• "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." : there is a reference to the certification from ANSSI which is a thorough security revue of the software by a state agency. If you need a review from the software itself, there are tons of blogs in French about it, just switch your google locale and google region to French to check by yourself.

Thanks for your time considering the subject. Cardondenis (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardondenis: Sources, sources, sources... If you make claims (of notabiliy), back them up with sources, please. Your say-so means little in this discussion. Kleuske (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Sorry for my incomprehension... For the second bullet point, the ref WAPT_(deployment_software)#cite_note-3 points to the ssi.gouv.fr site. I think more than enough to have a government agency taking interest in the subject (unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country" that does not matter much, but I hope not everyone has this stance on the other side of the Atlantic). Most of the technical stuff that is written in the article can be found in the document https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/02/anssi-cspn-2018_02fr.pdf that is linked at the bottom of the ref'ed ssi.gouv.fr page. I think that report (please check the header on the first page of the pdf document) fill the "Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source" condition. For the first bullet point, I also added refs about university usage, technical school program. I'll add more links tomorrow, it is getting late here now. Cardondenis (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardondenis: If I ask for sources, passive aggression ("unless you'd say that France is just one those "sh**ty country") is not a good reply. Neither is regurgitating sources already mentioned. FYI, I'm Dutch. Kleuske (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think ANSSI which is refered to in the article ought to be considered a reliable source that meets WP:RS: it is significant, independent, reliable and secondary. And the report mentioned in the discussion covers most of the technical aspect of the software discussed in the article. Among the other secondary source which I think covers all the reliability criteria is the presentation WAPT_(deployment_software)#cite_ref-8 given at JRES conference covering usage at INRA. And for the WP:NSOFT point of view, I think it covers all the criteria (except maybe the geographical area which is currently mostly limited to French speaking countries) Cardondenis (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2018 (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.