Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redmine
=[[Redmine]]=
:{{la|Redmine}} ([{{fullurl:Redmine|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redmine}}&action=delete}} delete]) –
The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability
- Delete The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability Hatter87 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22redmine%22&cf=all Many google news results]. Given your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hatter87 contribution history], I'd caution you to disclose your WP:COI & to prevent anyone from thinking that you are just making a WP:POINT. --Karnesky (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is sufficient mention of product to support notability. Similar examples are at List of project management software. Article is not great, but we have worse software articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree the article isn't great and could use improvement, but the software is notable enough and I don't read it as having an overly promotional tone. A lot of articles in the List of project management software read very similarly. --Jerle0 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Weak delete--mainly a comment. Given that the nomination does not in fact address what ought to be addressed (they should discuss the subject rather than the imperfect state of the article) I would be inclined to dismiss the AfD immediately, with some stern words for the nominator. However, I do not see much potential here right now--the Google News search refered to above delivers, in my opinion, only one single hit that would pass the WP:RS muster, and that is [http://www.informationweek.com/news/telecom/collaboration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207001354&subSection=All+Stories the article] from InformationWeek. I am leaning toward delete, until there's more evidence that the subject has notability. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The only reason to actually delete would be actual lack of notability, and I just don't see that. In addition to the Information Week article, Redmine is also cited as an important tool in the book [http://books.google.com/books?id=abNvyqPNWtgC&pg=PT444&dq=redmine+project+management&lr=|Ruby on Rails for Microsoft Developers] by Antonio Cangiano, and there is also an entire book on Redmine, albeit in Japanese, [http://books.google.com/books?id=GVdTVYqgwZcC&pg=PR1&dq=redmine+project+management&lr=|入門Redmine Linux/Windows対応] by 前田剛. Given that these publishers and authors feel Redmine is worthy of note, I would say it rises at least to the level of some of the other articles linked from List of project management software. It could still be debated whether or not the article is written like an advert or has insufficient citations and references, but there are different tags for each of those. Not WP:AfD. I would support Drmies's initial inclination to dismiss the AfD. Gahs (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (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.