449:: I count one reliable source independent of the subject (InfoQ). Due to the project's nature as an open source project, I don't think we need a great deal of independent coverage for verifiability purposes - the guideline says you should "usually" have multiple independent sources, but thinking pragmatically, I don't think it's necessary here.--
325:. I'm hoping to give it a shot soon (I didn't have quite as much free time as I hoped this past weekend). I understand the primary sources don't establish notability, but I'm really not clear on how to establish whether a given 3rd-party source is itself notable/reliable enough to establish notability. --
497:
What about the Dr. Dobbs link, and the
Capprime Software guy? Sure Capprime Software is a 1-man company, but he's apparently doing software development consulting and the link is adapted from a talk he supposedly gave to the Twin Cities Developer Group (link to the talk was broken). They're not the
276:
Sure I found refs from Stack
Overflow and InfoQ (this one was the obscure site I've mentioned), but I found no reliable sources. These two categories have no common entries. OSCON presentation by the author is a primary source, thus also not usable for
427:
I recall reading that the discussion for deletion isn't a vote, we're building consensus. I had more information relevant to the discussion, due to a major change in article content. I'm not trying to "vote" multiple times.
467:"lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". This software has a long way to notability, and there is no indication that it's goind to ever make. —
158:
299:
Does the fact that the software was showcased at OSCON at all mean anything? I know the author's company sponsored the talk, but a dedicated talk at a conference like that must count for something, right?
231:: found one review on some pretty obscure site and some blog coverage. Given that the software itself is only recently labeled as production-ready, it might need some time to get notable (if ever). —
395:. I've added a lot of content from several sources, a few of them from places not affiliated with the product. I don't want to remove the notability or delete tags without consensus, though. --
52:. There is a reasonable suggestion that a merge might be the best long-term outcome, and I would encourage the parties to discuss that possibility further on the article talk page.
152:
119:
258:
from sites like Stack
Overflow, InfoQ, presentations at O'Reilly OSCON, and many more. A Deletionist might get his hopes up; a realist should recondider. It surely meets
206:
92:
87:
96:
321:. I think we can make a good article from the source already given in the article, and the few references I managed to find and put on the
79:
173:
140:
17:
134:
194:
498:
most reliable, but they're not bad. Plus the "Producing Open Source
Software" link is a book from O'Reilly Media. --
130:
507:
490:
476:
458:
437:
422:
404:
383:
352:
334:
309:
294:
271:
240:
220:
198:
61:
528:
40:
180:
322:
83:
503:
486:
433:
400:
330:
305:
190:
75:
67:
524:
499:
482:
429:
396:
379:
326:
301:
267:
36:
146:
166:
472:
418:
348:
290:
236:
454:
216:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
523:
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
375:
364:
263:
57:
468:
464:
414:
344:
340:
286:
282:
278:
259:
251:
232:
450:
343:
with an exception of InfoQ, which is of dubious use for establishing notability. —
212:
113:
53:
254:
was using, but both Google and DuckDuckGo return hit counts in six figures for
367:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
109:
105:
101:
165:
374:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
481:So, what broader topic should we include it in? --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
531:). No further edits should be made to this page.
189:Does not demonstrate nor indicate notability.
339:All current sources are either affiliated or
207:list of Software-related deletion discussions
179:
8:
205:Note: This debate has been included in the
204:
7:
250:: I don't know what search engine
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
508:15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
491:15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
477:22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
459:10:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
438:01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
423:22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
409:You probably shouldn't vote
405:05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
384:01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
353:22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
335:05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
310:05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
295:15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
272:15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
241:01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
221:01:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
199:21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
62:16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
548:
256:veracity "version control"
520:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
285:-compliant sources. —
469:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
415:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
345:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
287:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
252:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
233:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
76:Veracity (software)
68:Veracity (software)
281:purpose. So, zero
48:The result was
386:
223:
210:
539:
522:
373:
369:
211:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
547:
546:
542:
541:
540:
538:
537:
536:
535:
529:deletion review
518:
362:
126:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
545:
543:
534:
533:
513:
512:
511:
510:
495:
494:
493:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
389:
388:
387:
371:
370:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
244:
243:
225:
224:
191:Walter Görlitz
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
544:
532:
530:
526:
521:
515:
514:
509:
505:
501:
500:Fritzophrenic
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:Fritzophrenic
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
439:
435:
431:
430:Fritzophrenic
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
397:Fritzophrenic
394:
391:
390:
385:
381:
377:
372:
368:
366:
361:
360:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
327:Fritzophrenic
324:
320:
317:
311:
307:
303:
302:Fritzophrenic
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
208:
203:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
519:
516:
446:
410:
392:
363:
318:
255:
247:
228:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
47:
31:
28:
376:Ron Ritzman
264:Jeff Dickey
153:free images
525:talk page
323:talk page
213:• Gene93k
37:talk page
527:or in a
365:Relisted
120:View log
39:or in a
451:greenrd
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
465:WP:GNG
341:WP:SPS
283:WP:GNG
279:WP:GNG
260:WP:GNG
229:Delete
131:Google
97:delete
54:Stifle
411:twice
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
504:talk
487:talk
473:talk
463:Per
455:talk
447:Keep
434:talk
419:talk
413:. —
401:talk
393:Keep
380:talk
349:talk
331:talk
319:Keep
306:talk
291:talk
268:talk
248:Keep
237:talk
217:talk
195:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
181:TWL
118:– (
506:)
489:)
475:)
457:)
436:)
428:--
421:)
403:)
382:)
351:)
333:)
308:)
300:--
293:)
270:)
262:.
239:)
219:)
209:.
197:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
502:(
485:(
471:(
453:(
432:(
417:(
399:(
378:(
347:(
329:(
304:(
289:(
266:(
235:(
215:(
193:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.