Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project-builder.org
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 17 April 2010 (closed discussion as delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 20:12, 17 April 2010 by Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) (closed discussion as delete)
- 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Project-builder.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally tagged for speedy, but 2 references are provided (although I'm not sure they're reliable). Not sure this website satisfies notability. Author of the article is also the developer of the software. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete does not appear to be notab- hey! Who voted while I was writing it out? Hmph. ALI nom nom 02:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd commented on the Talk page of the article, but it seems people prefered to remove that talk instead of bringing elements to it. There are multiple other tools similar to project-builder.org which have a Wikipedia page in the same category. Buildout, one of the first in the list, has less content on the page, than I tried to gather for project-builder.org. Even if I'm involved with the tool, I tried to bring neutral information around it, similar to what is delivered in the related conferences mentioned on the page. I also remarked that you removed perfectly valid references I put in List_of_build_automation_software and Package_management_system where the project should be mentioned, as it is providing the same type of features than the OpenSUSE Build system e.g. which is mentioned. This was valid information which has then been removed, especially as the latest was updated 4 monthes ago without problem ! I'm ready to remove any text on the page that you find conflicting or not neutral enough, tha's perfectly understandable, but trying to avoid to mention tools which have all their places in these categories, and also make a dedictaed page for each of them, is unfair IMHO.-- User:Bcornec —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, the main problem it that it doesn't show much evidence of notability. If there was significant coverage of the site by media sources or something, that would help. ALI nom nom 02:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the fact that the project has been presented during European events such as the FOSDEM and the Libre_Software_Meeting a proof of notability ? It will also be presented again at LinuxTag in June 2010. All these disclosure of information are on public sites, some of them even providing a video of the presentation. Of course, it's not Apache or Mediawiki (yet ;-) but a lot of other smaller Open Source porjects also have a page on Wikipedia, which is fair. I just want to be able to appear at the same level in the related lists, and have also a dedicated page giving more detailed content (again, I'm ready to remove what is seen as promotion).
Bruno Cornec 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcornec (talk • contribs)
- Hello Bruno, thank you for discussing. Presentations at events could, theoretically, be considered an ASSERTION of notability, but to satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy, it is important to provide citations from reliable sources. For example, has this received a write up in any trade journals or magazines? It does not have to be Time Magazine, but it should be some sort of publication. Try reading the Reliable Sources guideline, which may provide more advice on what is acceptable and what is not. If you do find things, please introduce them to the article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (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.