Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawmill (software)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sawmill (software)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to an award this software was up for in 2009. I've found a number of reviews of this software, some of which are comparisons with similar tools like Analog, AWStats, etc. One that shows up in a Google search is a PC Magazine review from 2001, which also establishes that the software has been around for a while. Shall I add a link to this review to Sawmill's stub and remove the deletion notice? ◉ ghoti 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a a software package for the statistical analysis and reporting of log files, with dynamic contextual filtering, 'live' data zooming, user interface customization, and custom calculated reports is probably more fun than a barrel of monkeys, right? Besides, this was was selected as a runner-up in the 2009 Streaming Media European Readers' Choice Awards, and you've surely heard of that trade award, even if it didn't actually win it, right? Non-notable sysadmin software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can find no second piece of reliable source coverage, but am inclined to WP:IAR in this case due to its inclusion in awstat's comparison page, suggesting it is perceived as a nontrivial competitor. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything sourced here is a molehill of trivia. This is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requirement for trivial sources is due to WP's requirements for notability. Since this is specialized software, the sources are necessarily less main-stream. The topic of this article is just as relevant as many of the others on the List of web analytics software. Do we remove them all? BBClone, Mint, etc? ◉ ghoti 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, and also WP:LOCALFAME. Nevertheless, the division between general and specialized knowledge is sometimes blurry, since the concept of "general" is subjective. ◉ ghoti 08:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just as relevant as the other web analytics software mentions. They are all smaller packages and get reviewed less often, but they still have a market share in this category of software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaStone (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) — StellaStone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.