Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenProj

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. John254 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenProj

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

Contested speedy. This article was previously speedied twice, and the original author posted this article, which in its current incarnation is more of a complaint about its deletion. The original author has been indefinitely blocked because of his username being deemed appropriate, among other things. Another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Week Keep a possibly notable software. The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre, because the article declined speedy was nothing more than a rant about previous deletions and the possible pro-Microsoft tendencies of the people who deleted it. It has now been edited as a one-line stub; and there are sources cited. However, the sources merely claim that the software has been launched. WP:Notable states that objective evidence of notability may include "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" (my emphasis) - a small handful of stories repeating a press release claim is coverage, but not substantial coverage. It serves to prove that the software exists; but not that the software is notable. As the notes on the notability guidelines state: "adverts, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources." However, IF more reliable sources can be found; and IF the article can be expanded then it should stay. At the moment, it is only notable because it intends to "replace" a Microsoft software (which is itself, not notable, and I've flagged that article with a request for sources). B1atv 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since we have some good sources to write an article from such as this. Oh, and maybe it's a good idea to encourage more competition in a field that doesn't have too much. Law & Disorder 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps, but encouraging and/or promoting anything is not Wikipedia's mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Marginal notability, but still warrants an article. ffm 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per L&D and FFM. I would note also that at least one of the external links certainly seems like a piece of substantial coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 24 October 2007 (GMT)

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.