Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenProject

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenProject

OpenProject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. A regional award given before the project had released anything. No independent sources to back up claims of widespread use. Might become notable in the future but much too early. fork of a fork of an opensource project. noq (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being a fork of a fork of an opensource project is no reason to delete. I created this as a redirect to the similar sounding but different OpenProj. So I am happy to have this as a redirect again. I can only find primary sources or second party references, but no independent references that could show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an OpenProject (disambiguation) page so the link to OpenProj und ProjectLibre can be found. -- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I found another external reference: a publication in the printed version of the magazine Screenguide. OpenProject was discussed along with three other collaboration tools. So please have a look at this. I suggest to remove the deletion mark by now and putting an effort in adding further sources. How does this sound?
  Regarding your concern about the widespread use I would like to point out that more users registered on openproject.org^[1] than on redmine.org^[2]. Please also have also a look at the code statistics on github. Did you take this into consideration? -- Nicmarwin (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability can be derived from these facts:

• The term OpenProject can be found in Google.com 104.000 times; some of these pertaining to OpenProj (the stand alone project planning application), some of them pertaining to the web solution OpenProject. For these I have written the page OpenProject (disambiguation).
• OpenProject has a complete tertiary source, namely the German article de:OpenProject;
• OpenProject has some magazine articles and even a book; [*1]
• OpenProject's first outline won the 1st prize of an open source award of the City of Berlin. If a Berlin award is a "regional award" then some Silicon Valley awards would be "regional" as well. Berlin is an important open source location and has significance at least for Europe.
• OpenProject is being developed by a staff of 17 full time working graduates, cf. [http//finn.de/team finn.de/team].
• Global players (among these Siemens and Telekom) rely on OpenProject. [*2]

One could think of deleting the article now and come back after half a year as soon as the next developing step is reported by the press. But I would prefer to keep the article; maybe shorten it a bit. -- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To address your points:

• The number of ghits some of which pertain to this article is not relevant. Raw google hit counts are misleading.
• Another wiki article is not a tertiary source - it is not even a reliable source.
• cite? The screenguide article above is useful but not sufficient in itself.
• An idea about a project won an award - does not make the project notable in itself.
• The number of people working on it is not relevant to WP:notability
• Evidence for this? Rely is a big word to use there. [*2]

noq (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability per nom. Caffeyw (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, with users such as Deutsche Telekom and Congstar (this one not yet translated from German Wikipedia).[1] More are likely to appear, and thus, boost the article's worthiness further. --ConCelFan (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[*1] Book on OpenProject (I did not read it yet):^[3]

[*2] Evidence, that Telekom relies on OpenProject:

• The new Telekom test platform for new devices (cell phones etc.) http://before.telekom.com is built with OpenProject.^[4]
• The new Telekom project for new people's projects http://myproject.telekom.de is built with OpenProject. ^[5]
• The Telekom in-house project administration which administers about 2500 distinct Telekom projects is done with OpenProject. ^[6]

-- Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References:

Comment Evidence of use is not evidence of reliance. In any case, without independent coverage there is no notability. A 40 page book published by a project consultancy is no indication of notability. noq (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I failed to find any sources that pass WP:RS and are independent of OpenProject, so I have to conclude that the subject fails the general notability guideline at this time. Maybe we can have an article on this later when there is some mainstream press coverage, but for now I think it is too soon. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should take into account that those OpenProject guys are good developers und businessmen, but they aren't experienced encyclopedists (and unfortunately they did not ask me before they started their Wikipedia article).

User:Mr._Stradivarius wrote:

• > I failed to find any sources that pass WP:RS and are independent of OpenProject ...

It is true that there are not so overwhelming many articles on OpenProject.
But it is true that secondary source articles do exist: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

References:

User:noq wrote:

• > Evidence of use is not evidence of reliance.

IMHO, in this case evidence of use is evidence of importance, because OpenProject is important and essential for all Telekom projects:
There is no Telekom project communication without OpenProject; and the same also applies to many parts of Siemens.
Notability and importance do have a strong intersection and interrelation.
It is true that OpenProject hitherto has its focus more on "industrial application" than on "numerous single users", but it is true as well that thousands of Telekom, Congstar and Siemens workers work each day with OpenProject tools.

For this and because many people see the word OpenProject, it seams to me important to disambiguate between OpenProj (which is popularly also addressed as OpenProject) and OpenProject, so OpenProject (disambiguation) has to be kept.
And if thus the disambiguation is kept (because it is important) it looks better to keep OpenProject (which is important for thousands of working people). --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to repeat the same references every time you post here. And no, evidence of use does nothing to show WP:notability or importance. Wikipedia uses notability not importance whatever that means to you. You keep stressing that lots of people rely on it, when all you show is some people use it. Directory entries, page indexes and project pages are not significant coverage. The only ref above that might help would be the pdf. Unfortunately I cannot read that and as it is made of images instead of text I can't use google to translate it so I don't know if it helps your case or not - the others do not. noq (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have received the Screenguide magazine article as PDF:

       http://offenesprojekt.de/openproject/scg16_seiten-16-21_openproject.pdf

and I have copied it to HTML:

       http://offenesprojekt.de/OpenProject/Screenguide_de.html

and translated it into English:

       http://offenesprojekt.de/OpenProject/Screenguide_en.html

Hope, that this article counts as secondary source. --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today the developers of OpenProject told me that "soon" there will be an article on OpenProject in the English webzine http://OpenSource.com.
Once again – it is true that there are not so many articles on OpenProject, but there are articles. --Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (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.