Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OiTG.org

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. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OiTG.org

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

Non notable open source software. No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Google has less than 600 hits to oitg and most of them are to other organisations. Contested prod. noq (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article may not be notable, however it is a nice initiative in the open source community. I feel we should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.41.29 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, I did not find anything like it in open source community. This project is a pretty good start to provide an IT Governance platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.209.129 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the anon editors above give a reason other than WP:ILIKEIT why this article should remain? It is a fledging project that might in the future become notable but at this time is not. noq (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would add, the projects page on sourceforge was created in January 2010 and currently has no files to download. - It sounds like vapourware. noq (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting something like this reeks of the worst sort of unimaginative, uninitiated process-wonkery. It's not notable, it hasn't been released, two passing anons say the article should be kept because they really really have a deep spiritual attachment to the software it describes or whatever, and nobody - but nobody - else gives a damn enough to state the utterly obvious. It's not notable now because there is no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources as of now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete and good riddance! Badger Drink (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources proving notability of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I applaud nice initiatives in the open source community and use more than my share of them. Like this one, however, they're pretty much all non-notable, as the first anonymous contributor here concedes.--otherl left 21:55, 16 February 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.