Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redmine (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 keep. Not enough participants for snow to fall, but a keep consensus has been reached with policy-based reasoning. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redmine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article is sourced mostly with content from associated subjects. I found https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/redmine as the only reliable source that discusses it. As a blog, https://plan.io/blog/redmine-guide/, does not meet WP:RS. The rest I found were either primary, affiliated or database entries. In other words, it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so fails WP:GNG. Pinging participants from the last AfD who showed some activity in the past year @Drmies:, @Gahs: and @Johnuniq:. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems clear. Simple Google (with mis-hits) is millions of hits, hundreds of books, many WP mentions/links. I do wish the article was updated and had more prose - about it and the field, it’s company and history - but notability seems clear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on policy. These mentions are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They're often affiliated with the product, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then why are those Find sources links the top section of this and all AfD posts? This seems an easy case just by simple look at that. Google gives 4 million hits, and filtering out hits on trivial content and other things named redmine ... is looking like a lot of content about the product and organization. Hundreds of books, again count those that do matter and I think this one is easy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To help you find reliable sources. They do not simply point to them. WP:GNG give some details on what constitutes a good source for general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the PCMag review, there is the Cloudwards review, which I also consider reliable and independent in this space. There are several books devoted to Redmine, of which Mastering Redmine, in its second edition, has a first chapter with some general information good for a description of the software. I think these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG notability thresholds. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned by Mark viking, there are several books that provide WP:SIGCOV including Redmine Plugin Extension and Development, Redmine cookbook, and Redmine a complete guide. The essay WP:NSOFT presumes notability ifIt is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. These sources and the ones linked above fit these criteria and should also count towards GNG as significant, reliable, independent coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It has been more than two weeks and with three keep opinions I suggest a WP:SNOW close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2021 (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.