Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Apollo (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. All offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: article's talk page contains some more reviews which seem to be less related to the copyright holder. But don't count this comment for keep vote: I neither checked those, nor made my own research. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually checked those links: there are 4 more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone), but all come from some obscure sites. I thing it is just not enough, so I vote delete . &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Czarkoff, I am obviously biased, but I don't suppose I could put on the scales two mentions by http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ as evidence that Apollo is indeed something that is being talked about and considered? We are not going to be mentioned by the NYT, but we believe we are notable and Wikipedia-worth. Tony Mobily (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Strong keep: Am I allowed to vote, being one of the people behind Apollo? Maybe not, but I would like to make a couple of points. LoudHowie, maybe I am biased (or, definitely) but I don't see Apollo as "minor". Many working in the industry would agree with me. I love Wikipedia and want to keep totally honest. I was open about things in the discussion, and am adding links to the article from the discussion page (I didn't do because I expected others to do it). Plus, I want to highlight that a lot of the reviews from sources that are anything _but_ obscure. Finally, you call the article a "minimal listing of the maker" -- did you see Basecamp's entry? What's your take on that, since I didn't see a deletion tag for their article? I am happy to extend the article with more information.Tony Mobily (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several points: (1) please avoid arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFF, (2) sure, you are allowed to vote (you might want to change your comment label above to keep or strong keep), though your vote would be given some less weight, as you are the initial editor of article, (3) if you know of reviewers in reliable sources, please identify them. As you might have seem, I voted above delete, as I failed to find those. Still I would be happy to vote keep if they were in place. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Humm ok (2) OK I voted 3) Not sure what makes a reliable source in WP books, but ReadWriteWeb is strong in Europe. Also, TechCrunch mentioned Apollo in an article as an alternative to ProductEve, does that count? http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Tony Mobily (talk) One extra note: if you consider ReadWriteWeb (ranking 1,545 in Alexa) obscure, or The Next Web (ranking 1,487 in Alexa) obscure, or BrightHub (ranking 1,994) obscure, or TripWire (Ranking 954 in India) obscure, then I don't think I stand a chance to get this article to stay -- but I don't think it would be fair and feels like WP:ZEAL to me. Tony Mobily (talk)
 * I see no ReadWriteWeb article. The four sources I identified as "more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone)" are BrightHub, TheNextWeb, TripWire and AppStorm. Among them only BrightHub has the editorial oversight, which is a minimum for satisfying WP:RS. Am I missing something? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Humble apologies, ReadWriteWeb only did a passing mention to Apollo (but well it's there) here http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php OK, so 4 major web sites covered Apollo (the ones mentioned above), and two major ones did a passing mention http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and  http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/  Amongst the 4 ones I consider "major", you only consider BrightHub as noteworthy. The fact that it's talked about, reviewed, etc. does, in my (biased) opinion, make it qualify to stay. Tony Mobily (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Per policy passing mentions don't count, but it seems you can relax anyway: this AfD stands for 7 days and have 4 editors' opinions: it is very likely too close as keep if closing admin takes your side or no consensus otherwise. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A cursory look at the nom's contributions reveals a streak of WP:ZEAL. Beyond that, there are plenty of references in the Talk page, which suggests WP:GNG. If these references need to be put in the article, then a tag would be a far better better choice and an AfD. --  Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify those sources that are usable for WP:GNG purposes? Hope you don't consider Tumblr post as satisfactory reference. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm tired of deletionism. It really demotivates potential contributors. 79.183.31.138 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: after some more though I conclude that Tony Mobily has the point: though the sources this article has are not as good as one may generally expects, they are discuss the software in depth; though Alexa ratings don't show the quality of sources, they may be taken for the credibility people put in the sources. And in the end this article has a devoted editor who will gradually improve it. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (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.