User:Gil.shabtai/archive2

Proposed deletion of Countersoft


The article Countersoft has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NCORP and massively fails WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the following on the deleter's talk page and on the article's talk page. below I quote his response.

proposed deletion
I wrote this article-stub a few years ago. Then I got an automated message informing me that it has been nominated for deletion.

I tried understanding what has changed since 2010 that made a deletion justifiable and necessary, and saw the sad deletion debate regarding Gemini_(issue_tracking_system) (of which I did not know until now), in which you were also an active participant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gemini_(issue_tracking_system)_(2nd_nomination)

I think that it was a mistake to delete the Gemini article. Needless to say, if the Gemini_(issue_tracking_system) article is not brought back from the dead, there is no real point in the countersoft article being on wikipedia. I created it in the first place as the relevant details seemed to clutter the gemini article and such separation was in the spirit of wikipedia at that time (at least as I understood it).

I wish to try and persuade anyone interested that a mistake was made in the decision to delete the Gemini_(issue_tracking_system) article, with the hope that someone who cares enough and has enough time, may try to make things better:

1) Countersoft's Gemini was a Code Project award winner (and in my mind, this, in itself, makes it notable) https://web.archive.org/web/20090522102250/http://www.codeproject.com/PressReleases/809/The-Code-Project-Announces-First-Annual-Members-Choice-Awards.aspx

2) Back then, and nowadays as well, software professionals all over the web consider Gemini as an alternative to consider. Here is a partial list composed after a few minutes of google search of "gemini countersoft": http://ifdefined.com/blog/post/BugTrackerNET-versus-CounterSoft-Gemini.aspx http://kampus-up.arjuna.web.id/IT/en/2434-2325/Gemini-(issue-tracking-system)_8937_kampus-up-arjuna.html http://www.bradegeland.com/blog/review-gemini-makes-issue-management-simple-and-does-so-much-more https://www.cprime.com/2016/07/jira-vs-gemini/ https://www.cmcrossroads.com/tool/category/configuration-management/change-management https://stackoverflow.com/questions/887223/axosoft-ontime-vs-countersoft-gemini

3) I think it would be safe to say that in the field of issue tracking, JIRA is currently the de-facto leader. I find it hard to accept an encyclopedia stating that a competitor of JIRA is not notable, while JIRA itself refers to in another manner: https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/net.brokenbuild.gemini-to-jira-migration/cloud/overview (also, see the following reference https://sphereinc.com/atlassian-support/ also see the reference here, which also puts gemini next to a unanimously notable tool: http://www.telerik.com/blogs/bug-tracker-conversion-tool-gemini---tfs)

If you would consider my opinion further, I think that any software that made the list of Issue Management Tools - Popularity Ranking of the project-management.zone https://project-management.zone/ranking/category/issue should be included in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems (as long as there are wikipedia editors around willing to do the work).

I have no interest in deletion debates. I just wish wikipedia would move on from the stage of overzealous deletions.

Why? compare the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems article with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions article.

which one provides better value for readers seeking to broaden and enrich their knowledge in the matter of their interest? Gil.shabtai (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. I wish editors would stop thinking that Wikipedia is a collection of everything when it's a collection of notable subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm writing this for my own reference. I'm so damn tired of the editors that you run into nowadays. What can you do in the face of a bureaucrat misusing standards to promote his own values and in that process insists on not thinking at all over the matter at hand ? Experience teaches that nothing. Practically nothing.

Wikipedia is ruled nowadays by those who have the time and resources to spend hours editing it and trim it to their likes, views and values. When future generations wonder why the dream that was Wikipedia became what it became, the answer lies here. What could have been a true source of knowledge is rapidly becoming a fortress of zealots, practicing a weird genre of encyclopedism, where football teams and celebrities are always notable and noteworthy while software products used by thousands are not. Usability and attentiveness to outer trends are not to be considered. The impacts of this rigidness on the freedoms of speech and usage are obvious. And the arbitrariness of the encyclopedia, as matters are determined by the randomness of the interest of editors is unbearable. It is sad that such a wonderful initiative has been able to go from pioneering to thick-headed bureaucrat-ism in less than two decades. So long, and thanks for all the fish, Wikipedia. Gil.shabtai (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)