Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rundeck (software)

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 redirect to Comparison of open-source configuration management software. It is unclear that the article attains notability status. I rechecked via JSTOR and Lexis/Nexis and found nothing. The references in the article are often to the company/group itself. The videos are not, in my judgement sufficient to verify notability. Since the material is already included elsewhere a REDIRECT seems most appropriate. JodyB_talk 17:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rundeck (software)

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

The article was created using only primary sources, barely asserting notability. My search for reliable sources of verification indicate this subject fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I originally proposed deletion if the guidelines were not satisfied using the PROD template but the article's creator contested the PROD by removing the tag. I suggest the article be deleted unless notability can be established. —John Cline (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided in the article or found through multiple searches; fails WP:NSOFT. (The WP:SPA article creator has also added the article text into Comparison of open-source configuration management software; it is questionable whether it has merit in remaining both there and in this freestanding article.) AllyD (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to show evidence of notability and of significant community of interest, I added references from multiple third parties, multiple recorded presentations from conferences that use peer review for talk acceptance, and link to 500+ person discussion group with regular activity. All were found in first few pages of Google searches. Comparing this page to those linked to from Comparison of open-source configuration management software (as referenced above by AllyD), the notability for this project seems higher than most others on that list (not stating this as proof of notability, just trying to understand what the measure of notability is for this field). Damonedw (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 18 October 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) 00:32, 26 October 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) 02:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent subject per Damonedw's comment that the subject is already covered there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra : my intention in pointing out that list was in seeking clarification of what is considered notable in this field. I believe that Rundeck is notable on its own and redirecting to such a broad list would do a disservice to the community. Damonedw (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I heard about it in a meeting inside my company, and this is not my field. I just needed to know what it is, and with a little search on WP, pronto, there it was, with all the details and links I needed to just understand what it is and what it does. If it was deleted, as suggested, I may not have found in WP and would have to widen my search outside WP in order to find it. warshy ^¥¥ 19:39, 4 November 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.