Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracity (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. There is a reasonable suggestion that a merge might be the best long-term outcome, and I would encourage the parties to discuss that possibility further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity (software)

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

Does not demonstrate nor indicate notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found one review on some pretty obscure site and some blog coverage. Given that the software itself is only recently labeled as production-ready, it might need some time to get notable (if ever). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know what search engine Dmitrij D. Czarkoff was using, but both Google and DuckDuckGo return hit counts in six figures for veracity "version control" from sites like Stack Overflow, InfoQ, presentations at O'Reilly OSCON, and many more. A Deletionist might get his hopes up; a realist should recondider. It surely meets WP:GNG. Jeff Dickey (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I found refs from Stack Overflow and InfoQ (this one was the obscure site I've mentioned), but I found no reliable sources. These two categories have no common entries. OSCON presentation by the author is a primary source, thus also not usable for WP:GNG purpose. So, zero WP:GNG-compliant sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the fact that the software was showcased at OSCON at all mean anything? I know the author's company sponsored the talk, but a dedicated talk at a conference like that must count for something, right? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we can make a good article from the source already given in the article, and the few references I managed to find and put on the talk page. I'm hoping to give it a shot soon (I didn't have quite as much free time as I hoped this past weekend). I understand the primary sources don't establish notability, but I'm really not clear on how to establish whether a given 3rd-party source is itself notable/reliable enough to establish notability. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All current sources are either affiliated or WP:SPS with an exception of InfoQ, which is of dubious use for establishing notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (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) 01:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a lot of content from several sources, a few of them from places not affiliated with the product. I don't want to remove the notability or delete tags without consensus, though. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably shouldn't vote twice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall reading that the discussion for deletion isn't a vote, we're building consensus. I had more information relevant to the discussion, due to a major change in article content. I'm not trying to "vote" multiple times. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I count one reliable source independent of the subject (InfoQ). Due to the project's nature as an open source project, I don't think we need a great deal of independent coverage for verifiability purposes - the guideline says you should "usually" have multiple independent sources, but thinking pragmatically, I don't think it's necessary here.--greenrd (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG "lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic". This software has a long way to notability, and there is no indication that it's goind to ever make. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what broader topic should we include it in? --Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Dr. Dobbs link, and the Capprime Software guy? Sure Capprime Software is a 1-man company, but he's apparently doing software development consulting and the link is adapted from a talk he supposedly gave to the Twin Cities Developer Group (link to the talk was broken). They're not the most reliable, but they're not bad. Plus the "Producing Open Source Software" link is a book from O'Reilly Media. --Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (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.