341:(which includes review of the Kanban Tool one among others), i think it has pretty valid material worth keeping. The graphic provided in this article seems especially helpful to use at the merge target article as one example of a visual aid (visual obviousness is core concept in the manufacturing kanban analogy), and I think it would be fine to explicitly mention the "Kanban Tool" company there and some other tool-providers in the article and/or as external links. I don't think it gives undue promotion to the Kanban Tool company to leave a redirect behind; it is possible in the future that a separate article on it would be justified, and a redirect just keeps the edit history. --
392:- software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The current refs are a blog, an incidental mention, and the killerstartups interview which is quite brief and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search reveals additional incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. A merge is not appropriate in this case because there is nothing to merge. Kanban Tool is not a subsidiary of Kanban (development), and software entries are typically removed from list and overview articles (with the exception of parent company articles) when the software is not notable enough to have a standalone page.
367:
not, as far as I'm concerned, justify mentioning anywhere except maybe in a long list with several of these other relevant programs that are equally not notable. Merge assumes more than mentioning the name "Kanban Tool." It implies taking the content of one article and merging it into the content of another -- which would be undue. I have no doubt anybody with a little marketing savvy can get a piece of software listed at some industry software "community site" (as toolsjournal calls itself). --—
314:- I'm not clear on this. It sounds like you're calling the AfD invalid as a request to merge, but it's not. Nor is merge the only logical avenue (or even a desired outcome). It isn't a subsidiary of any other organization as far as I can tell, but an application to help with the kanban method, AfDed just as I would for
366:
As far as notability, I think our standards for reliable sources and what degree of sourcing is sufficient just differ. That toolsjournal.com "review" (scare quotes because it appears to be a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability) would
336:
Technically
Rhododendrites is right that whether a redirect is to be kept or not is still open for discussion, and is a proper subject for AFD, but I think Bearian is clear that B supports merger and redirect of this without deletion. Looking at the material in the article, including
362:
My concern re: Bearian is that it seems like he's making a procedural point, which, since I don't understand what basis it has is cause for pause coming from an admin (as someone likely more knowledgeable than I in certain policy nuance as well as someone who can act on said
164:
195:
Non-notable software (per GNG/CORPDEPTH). Insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. Almost exclusively edited by SPAs (including two different ones that removed CSD tags). —
221:(which has been up for AFD for a while, for which i voted !Keep... this new AFD is presumably related). The sources here support the importance of Kanban in the software development area. --
246:
oppose this merge: development practice and piece of software are distinct topics, and coverage of development practice does not benefit from description of individual tools. —
430:
410:
158:
270:
117:
124:
90:
85:
17:
462:
255:
94:
352:
232:
179:
146:
77:
485:
40:
315:
140:
293:- the suggestion to merge is a common outcome for subsidiaries, and AfD is not the proper forum any more.
481:
136:
36:
466:
442:
422:
401:
376:
357:
331:
302:
282:
259:
237:
204:
59:
81:
397:
278:
218:
369:
324:
197:
186:
172:
458:
251:
73:
65:
56:
338:
347:
298:
227:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
480:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
393:
274:
152:
438:
418:
319:
454:
247:
53:
342:
309:
294:
222:
111:
434:
414:
474:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
453:: no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. —
107:
103:
99:
171:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
488:). No further edits should be made to this page.
339:this review of Kanban software development tools
431:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
411:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
271:list of Software-related deletion discussions
185:
8:
429:Note: This debate has been included in the
409:Note: This debate has been included in the
269:Note: This debate has been included in the
428:
408:
268:
7:
322:. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. --—
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
505:
477:Please do not modify it.
467:11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
443:07:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
423:07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
402:02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
377:00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
358:17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
332:17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
316:Bob's graphic design app
303:17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
283:10:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
260:11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
238:21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
205:20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
60:01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
318:rather than merge into
291:Close debate and merge
219:Kanban (development)
455:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
248:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
48:The result was
445:
425:
285:
496:
479:
374:
372:
355:
350:
345:
329:
327:
313:
235:
230:
225:
202:
200:
190:
189:
175:
127:
115:
97:
34:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
495:
494:
493:
492:
486:deletion review
475:
441:
421:
370:
368:
353:
348:
343:
325:
323:
307:
233:
228:
223:
198:
196:
132:
123:
88:
72:
69:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
502:
500:
491:
490:
470:
469:
447:
446:
437:
426:
417:
405:
404:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
371:Rhododendrites
364:
326:Rhododendrites
320:graphic design
287:
286:
265:
264:
263:
262:
199:Rhododendrites
193:
192:
129:
68:
63:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
501:
489:
487:
483:
478:
472:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
388:
387:
378:
373:
365:
361:
360:
359:
356:
351:
346:
340:
335:
334:
333:
328:
321:
317:
311:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
266:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
236:
231:
226:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
201:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
476:
473:
450:
389:
290:
243:
214:
210:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
120:
49:
47:
31:
28:
159:free images
74:Kanban Tool
66:Kanban Tool
394:Dialectric
275:Dialectric
482:talk page
37:talk page
484:or in a
363:policy).
244:strongly
215:redirect
118:View log
54:RoySmith
39:or in a
310:Bearian
295:Bearian
165:WP refs
153:scholar
91:protect
86:history
451:Delete
390:Delete
137:Google
95:delete
57:(talk)
50:delete
463:track
439:ping!
419:ping!
256:track
211:Merge
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
112:views
104:watch
100:links
52:. --
16:<
459:talk
435:S.G.
415:S.G.
398:talk
299:talk
279:talk
252:talk
173:FENS
147:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
375:|
349:ncr
330:|
229:ncr
217:to
203:|
187:TWL
116:– (
465:)
433:.
413:.
400:)
354:am
344:do
301:)
281:)
273:.
258:)
242:I
234:am
224:do
213:/
167:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
461:•
457:(
396:(
312::
308:@
297:(
277:(
254:•
250:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
121:·
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.