Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TemaTres

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TemaTres

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

Not notable management system. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am puzzled about the meaning of, 'not notable management system'. I have read other Wikipedia discussions about notability, particularly concerning that concept where it applies to niche concepts. I suggest that TemaTres is indeed notable- 1) It is the only free open source literature database thesaurus construction software that is continuously enhanced through crowd sourced contributions of add-on code (sorry, no reference for this other than personal knowledge and experience). 2) It is the engine behind many of the most important literature and art databases and archives worldwide. 3) While indexing and archiving isn't a topic of broad general interest, the quality thesaurus construction is the essence of what makes any literature database query result in a satisfactory list of relevant material. 4) I would be pleased to follow any guidance for making this article content less likely to be labeled spammy. 5) Perhaps, an alternative article should be written with the title Thesaurus Construction that has a subsection on software tools. Librarians, indexers, fact-checkers, and other knowledge-access professionals are quite interested in this topic.--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also puzzled about the "management system" component of the delete request. I suspect that Razr Nation's use of the phrase could indicate a lack of understanding of the nature of TemaTres, its purpose, its use, and its importance to library and information science. If the problem is that the nature of TemaTres is unclear, it seems that is an argument for making changes to the content of the article and not for its removal. If there has been no misunderstanding, perhaps Razr Nation could expand upon her or his concerns. As it stands, it is difficult to prepare a cogent counter to a telegraphic remark. While the topic of thesaurus construction, development,and implementation may be of interest to no more than one or two hundred thousand people in the English-speaking world, that is more than the number of people who might be interested in some other Wikipedia topics.

Another comment about notability or importance. There is a TemaTres page in es.wikipedia (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TemaTres&action=history).

--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

You should not vote keep more than once, as it looks like you are three different users instead of one. Thanks. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 00:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to suggest multiple votes. I have added several citations to articles in peer reviewed journals that discuss TemaTres and its value as an information tool.--David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 04:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

I can't find any information in the sources you've added to the article. Please, if you will provide a link, try to make it the most specific as possible. Do not link only the main domain, give the complete url wre the relevant review is stored. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 05:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of sources in this Wikipedia article: 1) articles from peer-reviewed journals that describe the value of open-source software ( and TemaTres in particular ) for literature database management; and 2) connections to the online databases used as examples of the systems that are built from TemaTres-produced thesauri.David Lawrence, Ph.D.; San Diego State University 16:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidl53 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the article on literature database thesaurus construction software, in the free open source section. Notability cannot be found. --05:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Software released less than two weeks ago. Looks like a WP:TOOSOON for me. Given adequate coverage, I encourage re-submission at a later date though. Faustus37 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout 19:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comment by Faustus37. Morefoolhim 19:10, 1 December 2012 (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.