Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agilefant


 * 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 delete. While there do appear to be some sources, those do not seem to be enough to meet the communities requirement of notability (at this time). &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Agilefant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was speedied in 2014 and recreated yesterday with the entirety of its content copy/pasted from the two primary sources it cited. Speedy declined, perplexingly, and reworded to be more of an A7 problem than a G12 problem. No credible claim of significance, still just based on primary sources, and fails WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page:

I think it's early enough that this is ok, but I'll ping, the only user who has weighed in up to this point. I hadn't noticed this separate page. My search for sources didn't find notability for "Agilefant" whether the company or the software. The (software) article, like the company article, is cobbled together bits of copy/pasted or very closely paraphrased sources (i.e. more copyright violations) in addition to failing WP:PRODUCT. I suppose I should modify my original reference to WP:PRODUCT above to point to WP:CORPDEPTH (same page, different section). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with the addition, the two articles are basically the same topic, and must stand or fall together. indeed, if they should survive this AfD, i would propose merging them. Moreove, the software article didn't exist when the company article was first nominated, if I read the history correctly. DES (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I declined the speedy because this wasn't the kind of blatant copyvio or advertising that warrants speedy deletion. I have added one source to the article in the past few minutes that seems to be independent. . There is also http://www.cloudsoftwareprogram.org/news-events/i/29006/68/a-more-agile-software-development-working-model-with-the-aid-of-agilefant but i'm not sure if that is truly independent. I think that there are more sources out there, and I ask if the nomiunator has done a WP:BEFORE search? DES (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire article other than the words "Agilefant is a technology company based in Finland" and "Agilefant is known for" was copy/pasted from their website, but I suppose the CSD isn't so important now. But yes, I searched for sources. Some routine coverage, a couple blogs, mention in a couple lists. It's not dire, but it's not notable either. Though indeed, lacking any claim of significance and drawing only from primary sources influenced the nomination. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  weak keep I have added a couple of additional independent sources, and i think this now passes the bounds for notability. More sources, if found, would only strengthen this. DES (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now found and added a 10-page academic (IEEE) conference proceedings article that discusses the software and its use in depth. i think notability is now clearly established. DES (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This, like the Methods and Tools source, is primary.
 * Both authors of the Methods and Tools source are Agilefant developers.
 * The IEEE paper's lead author is one of the developers, too. The paper also shows that the research paper and Agilefant have the same backers. Agilefant gets funding from Tekes and was "developed by the ATMAN research project of Helsinki University of Technology" and the acknowledgements section of the paper says "Thanks to Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) and all the Finnish companies participating in the ATMAN research project for financing the research." &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * '''Redirect Agilefant (Software) to Agilefant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, both of these are up for deletion here. Could you explain why Agilefant should be kept such that we would redirect to it? (I'm not seeing reliable sources that are independent of the subject). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Added some resources to show notability. BBA2016 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: BBA2016 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Thanks for adding sources, but literally every single one of these is connected to the subject. To show notability, sources have to be independent of the subject (i.e. not written by employees, developers, etc. let alone the co-founder of the company, Vehaniitty, whose name is on all of them). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you check Agilefant (software) site? BBA2016 17:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some more ref, e.g. about how the software has been part of university research for more than a decade. Editing in small pieces.. BBA2016 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of the information is convincing enough and the listed sources are also not convincing, with these two examined, there's nothing else for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable; I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Talk to <b style="color:#69793E">SageGreenRider</b> 17:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I too was unable to find any reliable coverage by secondary sources. There are a few articles, but the authors are all connected to the subject. Elaenia (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * About secondary sources: There is a whole article published in Finnish leading business magazine Kauppalehti as a secondary source, URL: http://www.soberit.hut.fi/sprg/projects/atman/publications/other/Tyot%20hallintaan%20ilmaisella%20ohjelmalla.pdf. Another one from TEKES (Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation) intranet about financing the software development. TEKES doesn't give funging some project that doesn't matter. URL: https://extranet.tekes.fi/ibi_apps/WFServlet?IBIF_webapp=/ibi_apps&IBIC_server=EDASERVE&IBIWF_msgviewer=OFF&IBIAPP_app=openraho&IBIF_ex=O_PROJEKTI_RAP1&CLICKED_ON=&YPROJEKTI=11048011&YTARKASTELU=Z&YKIELI=S&YHANKETYYPPI=11&IBIAPP_app=opendata&YMUOTO=HTML. The funding criterias: http://www.tekes.fi/en/funding/research_organisations/new-knowledge-and-business-from-research-ideas/ On XP2015 Agilefant is mentioned as one of the sponsors (Among Nokia, Iittala, Reaktor, Ericsson. URL: http://www.xp2015.org/. VersionOne also mentions Agilefant as one of its integrations: URL: https://www.versionone.com/category/portfolio-and-project-management-connector/. A technology company in Sri Lanka also mentions Agilefant: URL: http://sayanu.com/  BBA2016 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are either passing mentions or simple government listings, which are probably required under Finnish transparency laws. Being listed as a sponsor of a event (which has lots more sponsors too) or being listed on another company's website because they use the software in question don't really establish notability. Elaenia (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We are going the direction delete, but sources have been around, and I feel that closing just as delete after one week discussion would not be appropriate. May be more folks could jump in and look at the sources during the second week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nearly every source listed in the article is self-written (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, the company's website), which, combined with the lack of sources overall, points to this article failing WP:GNG. This warrants the article for deletion on its own, but it's not the only problem; this article is sloppy, promotional, and contains an undue number of irrelevant external links within the text. Delete immediately. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 02:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I couldn't find any reliable sources in the article or on the web which proved it's notability. Since the current sources in the article are primarily unreliable, there's nothing to establish a better article either. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 06:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show notability.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * comment The original creator jhas recently added quitte a bit of contnet, much of wich is over the top and should probably be trimmed out, but the Information Week source looks like an independent RS that discusses the software in some depth. Perhaps it is enough added to the other things listed? DES (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Like much open source software, there's no marketing department to get products reviewed so that it can meet our WP:GNG criteria. Like most previous delete comments, I couldn't find any sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.