Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cacti

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 with new name. Neil ╦ 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

nb, now moved to Cacti (software). Neil ╦ 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cacti

Cacti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

violates WP:N Misterdiscreet 03:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Keep or merge - Notable and popular graphing front-end. Covered in online articles [1], Magazines [2], and books such as Cisco's Network Administrators Survival Guide (ISBN 1587052113) and Short Cuts Network Monitoring with Nagios (ISBN 0596528191). --Mperry 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Ammendment: I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that it might be wise to merge this with RRDtool until the article can stand on its own. If the article remains it should be renamed to Cacti (software) and a disambiguation page created. --Mperry 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly rename I agree, it's ovbiously in use and notable and should be possibly be renamed Cacti (software), but I think a disambiguation page would be a better solution. Joe User NY 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to cactus regardless of the value of the current article. The current article can be renamed if it is kept, but this title should redirect to cactus. 70.51.8.90 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep but disambiguation seems a better option. Just direct people to the disambiguation when they search. Keep internal links where they need to go.
• Delete. WP:CORP says that particular products should be listed by their parent companies or projects, and this is apparently something made to work with another software package, called RRDtool, about which we also have a brief stub. The two might be profitably merged. This is not consumer software, really; it is apparently an open source program for system administrators to display network usage statistics in graphics. I don't see a real need for a standalone article about this software, and as noted above, this article highjacks the informal plural for cactus. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or justify, I have issue with any product article that focuses soley on the product and reads like an advert. There is little about the importance of the product, the industry it is in or serves, no 3rd party verification, just external links. If this article is the criteria, then EVERY software package should have a Wikipedia page. Apache, Samba, Wine, yes. But not every software package is encyclopedia material. At the very least Cacti should be a redirect for cactus. Pharmboy 14:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that every software package should not have a page here, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment. Wikipedia already tolerates pages about musical albums, movies, and TV shows, no matter how obscure and non-notable. Why shouldn't software be afforded the same courtesy? For example, The Lost Room details a mini-series that aired once, contains no references except to other wiki articles on the same subject, and passed an AfD (disclaimer: I proposed and supported that AfD). I wonder if Wikipedia should be (or is becoming) more inclusive of articles rather than exclusive. --Mperry 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: More is not better. I think the reason that many articles are here that don't belong is that many of the authors manage to write enough material, in a well thought out manner, so at a glance it looks "like an article", even if it doesn't really belong. Much of the content here, including some well written, doesn't belong. But there are more people adding than deleting.... Pharmboy 15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect to Cactus, the most obvious usage that it's hijacking. On reflection and reading round a bit, I don't think the sources are sufficiently reliable and strong evidence of its notability. Looking at RRDtool, there are half a dozen similar offshoot articles, and I'm none too sure about RRDTool itself. Gordonofcartoon 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with RRDtool, then Redirect Cacti to Cactus. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think merging is the best solution. The relationship between Cacti and RRDtool seems to be similar to that of the Microsoft Jet Database Engine and Microsoft Access, two products that work together, but are still their own individual programs. Joe User NY 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's correct; however, Cacti is a well-known user of RRDtool. If it's decided that the article goes then it wouldn't hurt to move some of the content into a "User's of RRDtool" section of the RRDtool article. --Mperry 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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.