Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenShift

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 keep. The participants present a good case for keeping the article in absence of valid deletion arguments. Enough coverage in sources to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Yash! 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenShift

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

This reads like a directory entry. The information is only about what services they support. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OpenShift is a big service, and certainly must be notable. I suspect the article can be improved, although I agree that in it's current state it doesn't warrant keeping. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft and userfy if needed as none of this better satisfies the applicable software notability, not yet convincing enough draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this looks pretty notable: An O'Reilly book on OpenShift, Infoworld award winner, lots of third party reviews. DGG is right, the article was just feature lists, so I stubified the article. to just the noncontroversial prose. It still needs better referencing and development. A notable topic and a stub with the advertising removed suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (thanks mv for de-crufting) and WP:GNG (subject of an entire book and enough other sources to meet the "multiple in-depth reliable sources" test). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given for deletion. Notability established by refs already in article. Please don't nominate articles that need improvement for deletion. It is clearly an effective way to get others to improve them but it is an abuse of AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 20 February 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.