Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracker (Business Software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracker (Business Software)

Tracker (Business Software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I initially speedied the article for WP:CSD#A7, but this was contested by the author, who made some valid points on my talk page. I then requested a deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 29). During the review, it became apparent that there was reasonable doubt about the article's deletion, so the speedy deletion was overturned. It also became clear, however, that there was no consensus that this product is notable enough for Wikipedia, and that the article is non-spammy enough for inclusion. That is why I'm nominating this article for deletion. This is mostly a request for community input, I myself am neutral for the moment. AecisBrievenbus 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – There certainly is enough Google News hits to generate a contention of notability here: [1]. My question is why nominate? Shoessss |  Chat  20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Because there was no consensus either way in the DRV. There was not enough consensus to warrant speedy deletion, so my speedy deletion was rightfully overturned. But the deletion was endorsed by User:Lifebaka, who cited G11, and by User:JzG, who referred to A7. This means that there was reasonable doubt about the article, which per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion means that "discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." AecisBrievenbus 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of sources. I'm struggling if they are all WP:RS, but the number persuades me to keep. The article could have more balance, but that is no reason to delete.Obina (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Would have nominated for AfD under the same circumstances, but there seems to be enough reliable sources to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps the article was in a different state at the time, but I fail to see how this should have been speedy deleted. RFerreira (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated by sources. And whatever state the article was in before speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, there's no way that should have happened, because it's not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". I'm rather surprised that we have admins who are so unfamiliar with what must be by far Wikipedia's most commonly cited policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (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.