Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GLPI

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources, promotional tone and WP:MILL concerns. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Google search of "GLPI" yelds more than 900.000 results, which is far more than the number of results we get for a "OCS Inventory" search, which is currently around 178,000. It is also available in many languages (45), which would be hard to reach if it was not notable enough. I do agree, however, that the article lacks several refs, but that can be improved. (I've already started making some changes.) Ekkt0r (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually see about 636,000 results when I use the link above, but the numbers drop if you remove the project's site from the results. Ultimately, that's immaterial. Please show "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). What I see is allusions to such but when I searched before nominating, I couldn't find any. I could have missed some good ones though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point. I should have excluded the site itself. However, we know that Google tunes the results depending on the country and/or location from which one does the searches. For instance, when I search "GLPI -site:glpi-project.org -site:wikipedia.org" I still get over 800,000 results. BTW, I've just found that GLPI is even distributed by Ubuntu on their "universe" repository (see archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/g/glpi/). At least one very famous university uses it. I guess the reason why there are not many third-party pages about GLPI is that most webadmins know that most people think the primary sources are OK for them, so that writing about GLPI would not bring many hits. I personaly don't use GLPI but I think it is popular enough to have an article on WP. If it was a commercial software then I wouldn't be supporting a "keep". But it is free and open source software. Besides, the "comparison of help desk issue tracking software" article points to this one, so I think WP is better with the GLPI article than without it. Don't you agree? Ekkt0r (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google hits don't help with notability. Usage by famous university and inclusion in Ubuntu repos also does not. You need to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Right now you have shown several primary sources (eg. FOSDEM talk) and HowTos (blog post and books), which don't really contribute to the notability of this software. You have also shown Linux Magazine article, which provides required coverage. You need to add at least one source that would actually review the software to make the article barely pass WP:GNG. And even then WP:MILL concerns would remain. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or even list the sources here and they can be added to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The project is developed primarily in French and is covered more widely in French than in English. The article's French version does list more independent sources in French than its English version lists in English. By virtue of the French-language sources, the project itself would appear to pass notability criteria. If it's notable in French, and if the official documentation and web site are both in French and in English, it seems fair to keep the English-language article.Thornrag (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.