Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldware

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worldware

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable antique failed attempt to create a techy buzzword. The article has been tagged as orphan since 2009, although the tag was recently removed. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of hits on Scholar. I wouldn't call it failed at all. Mbdfar (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sourcing has also been listed on the talk page since 2007. All the links are currently broken, but some may be salvageable using the Internet Archive. Mbdfar (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not pass WP:GNG. The only links that have been suggested for it are (broken, antique) course websites such as this one which briefly defines "worldware" as "software that can be applied to many purposes, to many ends." The section on Advantages is unreferenced OR. The section on its development also cites 0 sources but seems to be based on papers and other personal statements by Steve Ehrmann. GNG would require in-depth coverage in multiple RS independent of Steve Ehrmann. Once you remove the PROMO, what you have basically is a wiktionary entry for an obscure term once used to describe multipurpose software. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I again have to disagree with you about WP:GNG. Like I pointed out previously, there are dozens of papers on Google Scholar published independently of Ehrmann discussing the concept of worldware in depth. These publications span fifteen years (I can see some from 1997 all the way until 2013). Some of Ehrmann's papers using the term have hundreds of cites, one has thousands. You are correct that the article needs work, but the concept has obviously seen consistent use since it's coinage in the 1980's. Just because you are unfamiliar with the educational software industry doesn't make the concept non-notable. Mbdfar (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one can find many mentions of the word -- people using "worldware" and then explaining that it means "multipurpose software." But can one find sources (other than Ehrmann) that discuss the concept "worldware"--e.g. how and why the concept was developed? I can't, but if you can, please improve the article with them. If it is possible to create a good encyclopedia article about this concept, I will gladly withdraw my AfD submission. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that most of the papers discuss the usage and benefits of the concept, and to me this fits your question of "why" the concept was developed and used. "How" the concept was developed, to me, is irrelevant. Sure, worldware might be a snazzy term for "multipurpose software" as you say, but Wikipedia has no article for multipurpose software. And this is a very specific type anyway focusing on education - though honestly I'd encourage it to be a heading in a multipurpose software article if one existed. Tbh, I'm not interested in WP:HEYing this as I don't really care for the subject, I just think it has the right to exist. Mbdfar (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Barely found any news article about it, but it has found lots of coverage in scholar, per Mbdfar. I even found some papers where the term is talked about: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I believe the article easily passes WP:NEXIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:03, 27 June 2020 (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.