Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini (issue tracking system) (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. slakr\ talk / 04:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (issue tracking system)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gemini (issue tracking system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Refs provided are download sites, developers' sites, PR, and an incidental mention/minor award. The SD Times and Visual Studio Magazine external links look like articles but are press releases for a product embellished with a few quotes from the CEO. The company Countersoft also appears non-notable. Dialectric (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The use who has requested this deletion is an active contributor on a competitor product, Jira. I urge you to reconsider this request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.223.101 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gemini is a generic term therefore it was hard to find references, I've found this: PDF which is a whitepaper about Gemini in an Educational institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • — JudeDread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Appears to be anonymous and self-published, which does not convince about reliability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry are you saying that Biodiversity Library is anonymous? NO WAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The paper does not clearly identify its own author let alone where it was written. It could, for all we know, have been written by someone close to the subject. Further, JudeDread has a heavy involvement with the subject and so we must identify you as a single-purpose account, likely with a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am part of the ORG that wrote the paper and use Gemini. I am passionate about the tools I use and care to help them! One has to ask you 2 about your motives as per the comment from someone else here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • My full disclosure: I'm a software tester who has used several defect tracking systems and no issue tracking systems. As a Wikipediain, this article falls into one of my areas of interest and I nominated the article because a competitor noted that his article, which was also up for a deletion nomination, had more and better references than this article and several others. After reviewing that list, I nominated the articles that did not meet notability guidelines. With that said, you are clearly in COI as a co-author of that paper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • So you went and nominated a few articles, looking at that list about 50% of it are not notable! Seems like you went after the first few from top! I'll finish your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • See, we can't cite your claim of authorship. This PDF is just a file on BL's site with no signs that it (1) was ever published and (2) was subjected to editorial oversight. Without these conditions met, it is not reliable in terms of WP:GNG, and as such can't prove notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • (edit conflict) JudeDread, your interpretation is wrong. I looked at the full list presented by the other editor and I nominated those that I felt did not meet notability guidelines. Perhaps the other editor only looked at the first few in the article. I didn't look at the article and look at a few from the top. There is no job to finish, but you may nominate articles for deletion if you feel that they don't meet notability guidelines, but you do so as an editor who is in clear conflict of interest and have stated here that you have an agenda. Before wasting the time of other editors and even admins, you might want to think twice as your actions could be seen as disruptive. Finally, the act of nominating doesn't mean that the article will be deleted, only that a discussion will ensue. Also, if the discussion ends with no support for deletion (either no consensus or keep) you will not be able to nominate the article without providing a different criteria or until the ground rules for nomination change, as is the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that you, JudeDread and Walter, are intent on defining notability in your own terms, in clear breach of the Wikepedia guidelines, which state: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." What you are saying is that a product used by governmental organizations, national banks, major financial institutes, space research organizations and the like is not worthy of notice. You insultingly choose to denigrate an academic source without having lifted a finger beyond reading a pdf and doing some googling. Did you attempt to contact said organization? It seems that you are dangerously close to vigilanteism and I wonder for example if JudeDread, being so close to Judge Dredd is perhaps more than a coincidence. The disavowing of self-interest here is irrelevant - why should anybody believe you? Who are you to be believed? To me (and the rest of the world I would imagine) you are far less credible sources than the Biodiversity Library. I suspect you are stooges for one or more organizations on the list with nothing better to do than to find ways to damage their competitors. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen (I shall spend a good long time looking, you can be sure of that). Whatever the case may be, you cannot be a subject matter expert and deem such a commonly used product not "worthy of notice" when clearly thousands of people on the internet DO notice it. What do you take them for then, fools? People less worthy of notability than yourselves? Your deletion request is quite frankly ridiculous in the face of the impressive list of organizations that use the product and the Wikepedia requirement of "worthy of notice". If you choose to persist in this ludicrous farce, please start by listing your CVs so that the world can judge your suitablity to pass such judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsikuade (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Dsikuade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Actually I base notability on the Wikipedia definition. The summary at Wikipedia:Notability defines notable subjects, in part, as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So what we're seeking here, is those subjects that have been worthy of notice to the community at large. That is reflected in how much they write about the subject. There are great many interesting items on the Internet, but the Wikipedia community does not consider them to be notable. You could raise your concern on the Wikipedia talk:Notability or even Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), and if the criteria changes, you could recreate the article later or request that it be undeleted in light of the new criteria, assuming that it is changed and the article meets that criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The real issue is what you consider to be the world at large. As I have already stated, you choose to define notability to suit you own narrow and dubious purposes, since by any definition the 'world at large' could not possibly be considered to be interested in a subject as narrow as issue tracking software. There are more than 7 billion people in the world, how many of them do you think even know what Issue Tracking software is? Almost by definition this is a field of narrow interest filled with enthusiasts and specialists and the number of referential cross-references is bound to be narrow. When I search for Countersoft on duckduckgo, a 'notable' search engine for developers, I find that Asana has bought this company's name - hmmm clearly they think the authors of Gemini and the Gemini product are notable and they have an audience that spanks Atlassian into the ground! You seem to know next to nothing about this space and yet are setting yourself up as some kind of judge and jury. Once again I repeat my question: WHO ARE YOU? WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN THIS SPACE? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsikuade (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, in the light of the clear lack of evidence provided by either SPA, lack of evidence in the article, and the inability of two editors who looked for sources using the tools above (see above where it reads "Find sources" with links to Google, books, scholar, JSTOR and free images), this subject clearly lacks notability and must be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gemini_(issue_tracking_system)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1070978537"