I'm sorry, the page just didn't explain why your project was any different from... say... something that a bright fourteen-year-old could make in his basement.
You can try again if you think you can do better, but if it's not better, it'll get deleted again. DS (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear: are you criticizing the actual software or the wiki page? Do you think the wiki-page is not good enough (fourteen-year-old -level)? Or do you think the software itself is not good enough to be written about at wikipedia? Jahtikar (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the software. The article does not say anything about why EasyBugs matters. It does not assert notability. For all I know, you are a bright fourteen-year-old working out of a basement. Explain why EasyBugs is important, or the article stays deleted. DS (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Should I explain this to you here in this discussion page, edit some wiki-page or what method do you prefer? Jahtikar (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- And just so that I understand your point about notability, could you explain how for example the following wiki-pages explain notability better than EasyBugs-page? BugTracker.NET, Debbugs, DisTract Jahtikar (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- For one thing, all those other pages had references showing other people talking about them. Your article was sourced only to your own project. The WP:General notability guideline shows what an article has to have to survive here -- you didn't give any of that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Our notability guideline requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. With a quick google search one can uncover sources like [1] for BugTracker.NET, and one can almost certainly find similar sources for debbugs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). One cannot say the same for EasyBugs (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. So what you are saying is that new software should not be added to Wikipedia until more people in more places are talking about it. This is fine by me, I'll update more references later to the page. However, is it possible somehow to get the page back for just my personal use so I can edit it and publish it again later with more sources? Jahtikar (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes; contact an administrator privately and ask for a deleted revision of that page. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. So what you are saying is that new software should not be added to Wikipedia until more people in more places are talking about it. This is fine by me, I'll update more references later to the page. However, is it possible somehow to get the page back for just my personal use so I can edit it and publish it again later with more sources? Jahtikar (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)