Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLPI

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 no consensus. Several examples of third-party coverage in magazines were cited in the discussion. Sandstein 08:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLPI

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. For example, most of the references I have found for it are not independent of the product. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG … just another NN web-based database. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLPI is a popular tool, mostly in France. http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en 82.235.219.34 (talk)
- Comment - If it's so "popular", then how come no one can find any reliable sources that talk about it? Links to the subject's own website do absolutely nothing to establish Notability by Wikipedia standards. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and you think by deleting the article you will improve the situation?
  - GLPI is supported by [1] Atos Origin which is a large IT company
  - and there you will find a company who provide training for GLPI: [2]
  - This article explain the french police uses GLPI [3]
  - GLPI is also packaging for all the major Linux distribution - 82.235.219.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - To date, 1833 entities - known public references - use GLPI in the world. http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.85.252 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — GoneriLeBouder (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Adullact article appears to be "independent of the subject" - that's the kind of source we need to establish notability; thanks! It still doesn't really count as "significant coverage" though. A lot of things that don't meet the notability guidelines are packaged with major distros, I think, and the other links there are not independent of the subject; really what is needed here is more independent, reliable coverage. For Wikipedia articles, that is the standard used to establish notability. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little coverage. [4] this was all I could find. Debian has something like 35,000 packages, few of them are notable. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [5] [6] [7] [8] ... A "GLPI" search on Google give me 146000 result, most of them a related to the GLPI software! GoneriLeBouder (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - But do those sources help establish notability? I looked at the journaldunet article - it is about linux in general, and only mentions GLPI in passing as part of a list; it is not "significant coverage" - see the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article, it is not a stub, not a blatant ad, and meets redaction standards. It is about an established community, and google indeed returns tons of reference and documentation about it. (the third beeing the french wikipedia article which has never been marked for deletion [9]. Kegeruneku (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — Kegeruneku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I do think that the problem lies within the US Google coverage. GLPI may not be rated the same way between our countries, please US contributors check FR google before saying GLPI has no coverage, don't forget Google adapts to your research profile ! [10] Kegeruneku (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia can not be used as a source. If it had been a blatant ad, it would have been deleted a long time ago, most likely. Google is good at finding documentation, but that does not establish notability; please, read the notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GLPI is own by a french non profit organization [11] Referenced by a lot of important IT companies [12] [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.130.121 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 November 2010 — 82.241.130.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Being owned by a non-profit does not help establish notability. Those references don't really constitute "significant coverage" - the pdf just mentions glpi in a long list, for example. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This product may be useful, it may be free, but that has no impact on its notability. And as it stands now, with only one trivial source (and a non-english one at that), it doesn't meet guidelines for notability. The same is true on a French news search, only one result.--hkr Laozi speak 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that it is a non-english source should "count against" it here in this AfD. WP:NOENG says that if we can replace that source with an English one we should do so, not that it doesn't "count" toward the wp:GNG. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that. I stated that that being a trivial mention is the reason why it doesn't meet WP:N or WP:RS. I was attempting to convey that, along with being a trivial mention, since the source is not in English, it'll be harder to verify if it qualifies as reliable. But that was an aside; my main point is that there is only one source, and it is a trivial one.--hkr Laozi speak 18:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GLPI is the reference for free asset management software, it's used by numerous organization and company around the world. A limited list is available there [14]. I know some large company who use it and don't want to be listed there. In general, people use OCS Inventory with it, any reason why you don't want to remove it too? Indeed there is not some much mention of it on Google but I can quickly find a Wikipedia page with even less reference like the little town where I come from or a random porn star. So why Wikipedia can't accept a page about GLPI? Here again some new references There is regulary news about GLPI on Linuxfr. Books: [15] [16] [17]. You can also find presentation on slideshare [18] or Youtube [19]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GLPI is very popular in France. It's a free and open source software, not leaded by a company but an association. Your problem is just that the software in not well know outside of this country because the GLPI team doesn't promote it ? (as mentionned before, the software is used in different countries, just a look at this link : http://www.glpi-project.org/?page=refer&lang=en). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walid.nouh (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — Walid.nouh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No - the problem is that we can't seem to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines for inclusion as a stand-alone article. If such sources exist, let's keep this article! ErikHaugen (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more reference, American linux Mag French Linux Mag and in an italian magazine. 82.235.219.34 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is so much reference to GLPI on Internet that I think this is just ridiculous and a waste of time. What do you want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French magazine link is not significant coverage; it is just a passing mention, as far as I can tell. The linux-magazine.com article has potential. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French Linux mag 116 features an article that explain how to write a plugin for GLPI. The link is just the summary. You've to bye the magazine to get the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Saying it's popular mainly in France is ignorant. On the forums, a quarter of the users are non-english speakers from outside of France. I've talked to German speakers, people from Brazil, people from India, people from Italy, Japan, and the list goes on. You can find this list by just scrolling through some of the users' profiles, or by looking at the list of entities that use GLPI. I also fail to see why you'd want to delete an article. Is the goal of Wikipedia not to document knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.176.48.18 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When this is closed (assuming that it is deleted), someone should remove the redlinks from the articles listed under WhatLinksHere/GLPI. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want so much this article to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.235.219.34 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Appears to be a well know and well used software package, which clearly establish's notability. It stand's on it's own as a seperate entity, displaying many primary and secondary sources. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I beg to differ, but the only "references" are self-published sources from the subject's own website, glpi-project.org … please find and add some independent WP:RS citations. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely agree - I haven't seen any secondary sources. If you know of any, then I suggest you add them to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's this linux-magazine article. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2010 (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.