Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantis Bug Tracker

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis Bug Tracker

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

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage from reliable third parties, and there is no such references in the article. Haakon (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - Refs are a bit hard to find, since searched for "Mantis" and "bugs" brings in so much unrelated materials. However, there are a few independent sources out there, including one I think pushes Mantis across the threshold of notability. Mantis won a Linux Journal "Editors Choice" award in 2006. There's also this decent old source here, as well as some "bloggish" refs that might not make our cut. I was actually surprised at the thinness of sources... Studerby (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Studerby. --Karnesky (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Technology news sites have reviewed and commented on this software as per this list of references in the press. More notably there are also numerous references to this software in a number of software engineering books. It's generally hard to see who is using bug tracking software because it's often used for internal specialised purposes in small developer environments. However, saying that, there are many references to MantisBT in places where notability of different bug tracking software matters (such as this stackoverflow.com search query). Discussion sites like stackoverflow.com are highly specialised in the field of software engineering making it easy to see what the general consensus is (amongst software engineers) on which bug tracking software is widely used. MantisBT also appears within the top few results for Google searches on "bug tracker" and "bug tracking". Doing a Google search for "link:mantisbt.org" yields hundreds of publicly facing bug trackers running MantisBT. Michigangold (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just reviewed the article and all the sources are primary sources or are otherwise unreliable/unfit for an encyclopedia, even ours. JBsupreme (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retag as needing improved references. The references supplied by Michigangold are more than sufficient, but need to be incorporated into the article. Greenman (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also note that a few sources can be found from news archive. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [1] Linux Journal, [2] [3] Linux.com, [4] TechRepublic. A little book coverage as well [5] [6]. Pcap ping 20:10, 2 March 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.