Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucible (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 merge to Atlassian. So Why 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible (software)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN. I'm willing to revisit this opinion if sources are shown. Miami33139 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unususal and rosy mention here [1] in a 2008 book that is specifically not about commercially available software, but anyway mentions Crucible in the preface as something "so good, it would be a shame not to mention it". It makes it quite likely that sources could be found in specialist RS, blogs with editorial oversight, blogs that may be accepted as RS, or whatever. I'm not going to sift through all 274k Ghits [2] for "Crucible Atlassian, Inc" Power.corrupts (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One source is not enough to show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: re GHits - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Above "keep" !votes aren't really holding water here. There don't seem to be any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that WP:V is a problem, or is it WP:N ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The broader look concerns me here, that alternatives to deletion per WP:PRESERVE (a policy) have not been attempted or even considered. Even if consensus were that the subject does not warrant its own article per WP:N (a guideline) the information could merged somewhere else - for instance under Atlassian, with a redirect - and according to policy this should be considered. The nom. regularly puts up software articles for deletion and the coming months we may or may not see similar nominations of: JIRA Studio, Clover (software), FishEye (software), Crowd (software), Bamboo (software), Confluence (software), JIRA (software), which all have largely the same sourcing problems as this one, and for which a nomination will send other editors scrambling for finding sources. So I suggest that somebody concerned with the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of software, the nom. perhaps, merges all these articles into a parent Atlassian article. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two more articles talking about the tool, but the coverage isn't substantial.[3][4] Fences&Windows 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of free and open source software packages. Reasoning: Per the above searches, the software verifiably exists, so information about it belongs on Wikipedia; but it is not notable, so it does not merit a standalone article. As Power.corrupt says, there is a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE here, in that WP:PRESERVE enjoins us not to remove sourced and verifiable information from the encyclopaedia but WP:N enjoins us not to permit articles about non-notable things. Thus, the only outcome consistent with our editing policies and guidelines is a merge, and List of free and open source software packages seems to be the most logical merge target.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge target should be an article for the info to be retained, not a list, which is only a list of links. Merging all articles (with redirects) to the company Atlassian would be the best course action. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlassian. We've got enough sources to verify this software exists and what it does, but not enough to establish independent notability. Merging to the parent company seems like this best course of action, and to be preferable to the list of free and open source software packages. Fences&Windows 17:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlassian. WP:N not established, minimal information in the article that won't really be missed, possible WP:ADVERT. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (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.