Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DotProject (2nd nomination)

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. There appears to be some disagreement on whether or not the sources cited here are reliable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DotProject

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

Cannot find any evidence that this "project manager" is passes the WP:GNG. Possible merge into Microsoft project, but current sources are an interview, and two sites requiring logins who, by the URL's appear to be forums anyway. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per the article's first AfD, which I had not seen when I first created this one. It would have been really nice if someone had actually added those sources to the article though... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that....hang on a second... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the first three sources listed at the previous AfD are here, here and here. Note that per WP:RS, a questionable source is one "with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature..." Now, this is debatable, but all three of these books seem to be promotional in tone. The first, whose section is titled "Mr Big uses dotProject for project management", is from a book titled Free Software for Busy People and contains text like "Mr Big is a fan of Microsoft Project, regularly using the older PC version and insisting that his immediate employees also use it, but this pricing was too high. So dotProject seemed like the perfect solution." The second, from the book The Business Guide to Free Information Technology , has an installation step-by-step. The third book, Shoestring Venture: The Startup Bible, lists dotProject in a directory among many others. The fourth source, Research and Practice of Active Learning in Engineering Education, has exactly one sentence on the software. I'll leave it for others to decide, since I'm neutral on whether or not these sources establish notability. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it's a Delete - these are unreliable sources. The article has had several years to gather independent reviews for the software - there must be some but certainly hard to find. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one to filibuster, but this should have been gotten the first time around. I do believe that consensus is clearer now than it was three years ago that being open source does not lower the notability standard for software. The offered sources in the last AfD do not appear to be significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Free Software for Busy People (1) praises the software and is not written in a professional or encyclopedic tone, it seems informative and instructional, not promotional, much like a positive, independent review. Unless there's some problem with the publishers that I'm not seeing, these are not questionable sources. Source 2 contains a lot of how-to content but also some paragraphs which describe features of the software, significant coverage, and usable for providing encyclopedic content. Despite their brevity, the two paragraphs in 3 are indeed significant coverage and again usable for providing encyclopedic content. When evaluating significance of coverage, it only matters what the book says about the given topic and how it says it – it's irrelevant that the book also discusses many other software packages. Agreed that open source software has the same standard of inclusion as anything else, that the article is poor quality, that the references need to be incorporated, but none of those are reasons for deletion. – Pnm (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as if that weren't enough, from the article: "There is also a book written on the subject of using dotProject for project management entitled: "Project Management with dotProject" by Lee Jordan." It's 232 pages long. – Pnm (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the references seem to be indeed quite appropriate for WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT purposes. That said, the article itself is of exceptionally bad quality and thus needs to be rewritten entirely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (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.