Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Request tracker

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 23:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request tracker

Advert, delete. Gazpacho 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Can't we speedy delete ads? It comes awfully close to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A3, anyway. DavidConrad 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does look like an ad, so please Speedy Delete MicahMN | Talk 03:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Platform for external link. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- and cleanup. It's very notable, free, helpdesk ticketing software. The article could do with an expansion though. - Longhair | Talk 06:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as platform for an external link/advertising. --Carnildo 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment — Linnwood ^(talk) 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 09:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Longhair, it's just a stub with no promotional content. Kappa 11:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just an innocent software article. I know severel people who use it, so it is probably notable enough. Thue | talk 19:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ug, depressingly sparse stub, but, from above comments, not non-notable and doesn't seem to advert like to me. Won't one of the people who use it expand it somewhat, please? Things like: features, nasty bugs, people who use it, reviews, related products, links to articles on the general topic, etc... JesseW 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move post-VFD to Request Tracker). Notable, probably leading the open-source ticketing segment by now and giving Bugzilla a run for its money in the bug-tracking segment. It's a depressingly-short article, yes, but were it an advertisement it would be even more depressing. — mendel ☎ 03:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I've fleshed it out a bit more now. It's still stubby but I need to take the time to read a bunch of other software-related articles to figure out how to make it not read like advertising. — mendel ☎ 04:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I think the current article is fine. In fact, I don't even think the original article looked like an ad, it was just short. Thue | talk 14:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like an advert to me. If it's used by many people it's notable enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable. JamesBurns 03:47, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.