Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bzip3

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. Star Mississippi 15:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bzip3

[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)

Very interesting article, but it does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the review! The article I wrote was mostly inspired by the LZ4 wiki article, I also had a look at some other pages (particularly QUAD, bzip2...). It's generally hard to find second degree references to computer software - for instance, five of the fourteen references on the LZ4 article link a primary source (the author himself), compared to three out of sixteen on the bzip3 article. I could try to look for more sources if that's desirable; I'm not that well accustomed with the project. --Dieterw1999 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. MarioGom (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete (maybe move to draft or userspace) - I think we can acknowledge that there was effort in creating the page, however there is nothing on the page or that I can find to show any significant reliable sources have written about it. Sadly that's the bottom line for deciding whether we keep pages here. Maybe things will change and there will be significant coverage in the near future and the page can return to mainspace. JMWt (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a new compression tool that does not yet have significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject lacks significant coverage in third-party sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The software was only released in May of this year, perhaps it is simply WP:TOOSOON. - Aoidh (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bzip2 into bzip (which is currently a redirect to bzip2). Thparkth (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing WP:DUE to merge, and bzip2 and bzip3 are similar, but distinct things. - Aoidh (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where undue weight comes into this. Obviously bzip2 and 3 are distinct, but they are also closely-enough-related topics that we can choose to write about them together if we like. I'm quite sure that if someone had boldly done what I propose (making bzip an article about all generations of bzip, including the bzip3 content) instead of creating bzip3 this wouldn't be at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight comes into this because within the context of bzip2, there are no reliable sources discussing bzip3, it is not relevant to bzip2 in any way, and no reliable sources support the idea that it is. It is a different implementation of the Burrows–Wheeler transform and has a similar name but is not the same program, is not a continuation of or successor to bzip2. I have to very strongly oppose any effort to make a "list of programs called bzip" which is all such an article would be. bzip2 exists as an article because it is notable, whereas bzip3 is not (I don't know whether bzip is notable but I can only assume it is not). Given the complete lack of reliable sources discussing this article's subject, there is nothing worth merging, especially into a different but similarly named article when it's not relevant to that article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the topics should be combined into a single article is an editorial choice. There is no WP:DUE issue here. Bzip3 is not an alternative viewpoint compared to bzip2. Thparkth (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Given that bzip3 isn't even an aspect of bzip2, the amount of information the bzip2 article should dedicate to this marginally-related subject is exactly same as its prominence in reliable sources: zero. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge, as bzip3 is unrelated to bzip2. The bzip2 toolis a long running and established active project which is widely used. The bzip3 project is new, has an entirely different team, and is only related to bzip2 in that the design goal was to outperform bzip2. The name of the bzip3 project is kind of a name hijack. --Mvqr (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or otherwise move out of article space, without prejudice against bringing it back if it catches on. Right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. I also second Mvqr's argument against merging. 3mi1y (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2022 (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.