Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplicity (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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicity (software)

I cna't find any reliable sources that show notability. This article was posted on the talk page, but the article needs multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article above & others listed on google news @ heise (and mentions in multiple unix/linux books). FWIW, duplicity is included in multiple linux/BSD distros (which was a suggested criteria for the software notability guideline, which has failed to garner consensus) & the rank on popcon isn't all that low. This seems to be a case where we just need to add citations to the article to improve it. --Karnesky (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the maintainer of duplicity. I did not put the article up on the page, however, it is accurate, if a bit incomplete. The project is active and has been for the last couple of years. I took over from the original author, Ben Escoto. What do you guys need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwloafman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Show where identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy have independently published works talking about this subject in depth. Show where someone other than the creator/inventor has discussed/documented it, proving that knowledge of it has escaped its creator/inventor and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Readers must be able to check all Wikipedia articles against sources, and they must be sources that readers can trust. All that you need to do is point to such sources, for best results by citing them in the article, in a further reading section or some such. Mention it here when you have. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Karnesky above. The program has a long history, and it was recommended for Debian administration even when described by its creator as unstable and abandoned by him. More recently it has got (approving) coverage in places such as this article in Linux Journal. Morenoodles (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, low to moderate notability as far as OSS software projects go, but that's still more than naught. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:14, 1 February 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.