Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Observium (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 delete. czar 19:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observium (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)

Once pruned of self-sourced puffery, blogs etc., the only independent source cited is a reprinted press release. In the 150 or so unique Google hits, I don't see any credible sources to establish notability or support content in the existing article. The edit history shows the article was created by someone involved in the project, and the current edit war is being driven by someone else from the company. The main non-COI contributor is Mark Bergsma (WMF), I thnk we use LibreNMS , a fork. That does not obviate the need for reliable independent sources, of which there are, at this point, none.

The previous AfD, in 2010, closed as no consensus. One of the two Keep arguments was: "Comparison of network monitoring systems demands having a dedicated Wikipedia article for every system listed". If I had closed that AfD I would have rejected that. You want an article so you can include it in a list where the consensus is that only notable (i.e. with-articles) software is listed? That is circular reasoning, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The other Keep argument, advanced by the project's creator and endorsed by one other user, was a list of four links. The first of these was a reprint of the second (clearly identified as such in the text). The second is simply a press release, the third is a blog and the fourth is 404 now but was simply a schedule of events for a techmoot. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that this topic is noteworthy, however it is abundantly clear that the article has been created purely from self-sourced material by the owners of the product. It also seems clear that those owners are unwilling to allow the article to exist in an NPOV format. I would like to see the page rewritten by somebody unconnected with the project (or LibreNMS), but without independent sources, I don't know what can be done, so I believe deletion is the best action at this point. 185.102.133.45 (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this article shows nothing to suggest notability and the references fail the criteria in WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a nice NMS that unfortunately has not gotten attention in the press. My most promising source finds were [1], an RS that is not in enough depth on the non-howto material, and [2], which is a reasonable review, but is a blog post and thus not an RS. They are not enough to satisfy notability thresholds. I was unable to find a good merge/redirect target. In short, this may be WP:TOOSOON for the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2016 (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.