Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledger (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. Nomination effectively withdrawn, sourcing vastly improved within the constraints of that which seems available, WP:NPASR if doubts remain about sourcing. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ledger (software)

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

No notability established (tagged since Oct 2011)- no references Vrenator ^talk 10:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with this - it has only basic details so needs more detail and proper sources. Which I doubt will happen as the article is 2 years old! Adrianw9 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~—Added two solid cites (lwn.net and linux.com), but as best I can tell there's nothing else out there in the way of reliable sources. If anyone else can dig up a couple of more cites I'm happy to reconsider, ~~but as it stands this doesn't meet WP:NSOFT.~~ Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see at least one more source, but I think we can build a solid article with what we have now. Change to Keep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Added reference from Floss weekly. To cite WP:NSOFT: “It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources[3] for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.” There are sources from 2006, 2011 and 2012, showing that this is no short-term bubble. Coverage in LWN.net is significant in Free Software. (I came here because wanted give the advise to check Ledger and even before I got to send the link, I saw the deletion request on Wikipedia…). Draketo (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain— I have been the maintainer of the Ledger documentation since late 2011. I have to admit that I have never bothered to even look at the WP entry for Ledger. However, if it would make the difference between keeping the entry and deleting I would be happy to bring it up to date. I will not comment on Ledger's notability, except to say I believe all the second sources have been cited.Enderw88 (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— When listed this article had no sources. That seems to have been rectified now. Vrenator ^talk 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep It seems from the sources especially http://lwn.net/Articles/501681/ that this might be influential software. I can say only a "weak" keep because I am not competent to actually evaluate the quality of the sourcing here. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— Ledger is used by not only users such as myself, but nonprofits such as (at least) the Software Freedom Conservancy. There's considerable possibility that Ledger may be used as a base for a more streamlined interface for nonprofits given Conservancy's recent campaign. That seems like a reasonable enough reason to me? --Cwebber (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— At this point there are three references within the free/libre open source software community as to the software. Considering the balkanization of tech media relative to topical coverage, I will say that that is going to be good enough. If somebody is seeking coverage in the Wall Street Journal, CNET, or the PCMag Digital Network of this program then there is an overenthusiastic application of WP:NSOFT happening here. Smk (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2013 (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.