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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Xwt

Xwt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ajgorhoe who provided a rationale on Talk:Xwt, but sadly I read it as WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and without sources to back this up I am afraid it's time for a wider discussion here. PS. Ajgorhoe also suggested this could be merged to MonoDevelop, which I am not opposed to, but the fact that MonoDevelop doesn't even mention Xwt is IMHO a further underlining of this software lack of importance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Secondary sources are cited (but more relevant and representative citations should be added). Xwt is important as one of the GUI toolkits developed in the scope of the Mono project. It is notable for use of different back-ends on different platforms, a distinguished design by which native look an feel is achieved. In my opinion, this article should be equipped with additional references and its contents should be improved, I hope somebody with more knowledge about the subject will come across. Note that search for references is a bit difficult in this case due to very unfortunate and ambiguous selection of name. -- Ajgorhoe ( talk) 02:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: MonoDevelop does not mention Xwt (as Piotrus mentions above), but Mono does. A remark made above - that MonoDevelop does not mention Xwt, which is a further underlining of this software's lack of importance - might be a formal fallacy. Such a fact could equally well mean that Wikipedia's coverage is not developing at a good pace. If there is something on it, might this be related to habit of holding the finger too tightly on the "deletion trigger"? -- Ajgorhoe ( talk) 03:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • P.S. Merging Xwt with Mono was just an idea, not necessarily the best one. Somebody with more knowledge about the subject should give opinion on this, perhaps with arguments expressed on the Talk page.
• Delete -- no notability established by the article, and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If this is something notable, that should be clear after looking at the page. As written, it does not pass at all our notability guidelines. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A lot of software projects want to have wikipedia articles. There is no indication that this on meets notability requirements to merit one. ~ Kvng ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 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.