Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taste (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 keep. The delete arguments have been countered by the locating of significant coverage via the internet archive. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taste (software)

[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)

Fails

WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The word taste is pretty common, but I could not see any any notable coverage after several searches. No major coverage, delete per WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
try harder - this product was well covered at the time in all of the Mac mags - I recall it in MacWEEK IIRC. I find it difficult to believe no one can find coverage with a little more effort. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some magazine refs on the back of Maury Markowitz's comment (admittedly the same magazine), which merely just offers some basic info about its capabilities. I am not necessarily suggesting this demonstrates notability, that is for others to decide. Ode+Joy's comment about "taste" being a common term is a fair one, though this in turn means any potential online references may be incredibly hard to find and thus it's not unreasonable to imagine many offline sources exist, especially given this seems to have been published 30 years ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I recall a sidebar in MacWEEK (which in that mag is a "full article") as well as longer capsule reviews in one of the others, either MacWorld or more likely MacUser. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a searchable index of either that is complete and trying it in Google, as noted above, is an exercise in frustration. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1: how many people are still using this software? Is it dead, alive, or in a retirement home? The answer should affect the outcome. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ode+Joy: That is a very ill-advised perspective to take. Something doesn't have to still exist or be in use to be able to have an article. An article's subject matter should be judged on its credibility and whether it has, at some point in time, been notable. For this article, I genuinely have no idea. It seems like it was a "taster" version of a bigger package, though whether it was the first to do something, or the first to feature something, I don't know. You can't make a judgement based on whether many are still using it 30+ years on, which clearly isn't the case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Well, in my view, there are more important things to work on that software that has gathered mold. So I will bid this issue farewell. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple magazines I was able to find with the help of the Internet Archive's "Search text contents" function, see expansions. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are just passing mentions in ads, but the last one is indeed a real mention. Hopefully this URL takes you to it, it's a capsule review, but very typical of the ones I recall from this era. It's certainly enough for one NOTE checkbox. BTW, did you do anything special to get the search to work? I tried it before and didn't get a single MacUser, but here's a bunch. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I went to ProQuest first to get an index of articles that mention DeltaPoint and Taste, finding several from Macworld and MacUser and one from Byte. From there I searched for <magazine's title> + <issue date> and/or <issue number> provided by PQ into the Internet Archive search bar and found scans of the issues that have those articles, which I've cited in the Reception section. If you don't have access to PQ, putting double-quotes around the search terms e.g. "deltapoint" "taste" into IA's "Search text contents" brings up those scans* along with hundreds more than the link I gave above, but indeed a lot only mention the software in ads, and some are duplicate scans. Clicking on relevant categories in the "Collection" sidebar narrows it down greatly but there's still a bit of spelunking involved.

* Well, except the Byte scan whose OCR mangled "DeltaPoint" into being "DeltaPoinfs" and "DeltaPoini"; had to search for that issue manually given the PQ info. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW CLOSE User DigitalIceAge's excellent sleuthing resulted in three major reviews being added and easily meeting NOTE. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per sources referenced above and
WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:17, 15 October 2021 (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.