Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collabtive


 * 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 per AFD consensus. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Collabtive

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominated this for speedy but it was declined as it "asserts notability", though such assertion is not apparent to me. Anyway, it's non-notable per WP:N, just-released, web-based application, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It asserts a vague notability, probably not speedy material. But it's a non-notable company founded only a few months ago. PeterSymonds |  talk  16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-Notable.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it aims to become sole RS coverage appears to be a press release TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Hey - There's a giant open source revolution going on and pages like this are EXTREMELY helpful to understanding who the different players are and where they fit into this changing world. Please don't delete pages like these! Business students, and people researching different open source projects, find these kinds of listings extremely useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.20.98 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per PeterSymonds. Julesn84 (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above, although I disagree that age of a company would help to make a decision. Gary King ( talk )  19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I still think the article should not be deleted. Because: -> There's also a lot of international Blog coverage like http://jack.xtremdesign.net/blog/?p=130, http://www.evilmile.de/news-5 , http://www.moongift.jp/2008/02/collabtive/, http://www.workshop.ch/openmind/2008/03/29/collabtive-einfaches-projektmanagement-tool-im-web-20-stil/ , http://www.genbeta.com/2008/01/24-collabtive-sistema-de-gestion-de-proyectos-para-instalar-en-nuestro-propio-servidor-web , http://blog.fairytree.fr/index.php/sortie-de-collabtive-035/ (much more can be found on google)
 * The article is about a notable Open Source Collaborative Software Program
 * It is one of very few Open Source Programs in its category
 * Other programs of the same category seem to fit with your guidelines (For example: ProjectPier)
 * Collabtive is mentioned / covered in notable IT Publications such as CIO world news, Computerworld , the linux magazine (may 2008 issue) , and others as well.
 * Collabtive is accepted by known and established Open Source directories such as Sourceforge, Freshmeat or Framasoft. The software directories excercise editorial control over accepted projects.
 * Doing a Google search for the term "Collabtive" will return more than 25000 results. Almost all of them relate to the project.

Sincerely Philipp-de (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

-> To clarify:
 * Collabtive is NOT created by a company, but by individuals. Collabtive is developed as a community Software. The software is provided free of charge. You can verify this by clicking the "Imprint" link on the project page footer (http://collabtive.o-dyn.de/imprint.php)

Sincerely Philipp-de (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all good, but Wiki demands 3rd party reliable sources. Delete without prejudice against recreation if WP:RS etc can be met.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:29, 28 April 2008 (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.