Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Enterprise (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to GNU.  Sandstein  06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

GNU Enterprise
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The articles cannot be attributed to reliable sources: The website is unreachable, the source code repository is empty, there are some old packages giving clear evidence that the project never supported the features mentioned in the article or various comparison pages (Comparison of accounting software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages). The artice fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: The mailing list had no announcement since 2009.--Huskytreiber (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

End rationale, begin discussion.
 * Comment - I fixed up the nomination for, although it still looks quite unorthodox; I won't be watching so ping me if needed. Ansh666 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 31.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 20:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found mentions on Heise.de and Salon.com which may be enough to establish notability.  Notability isn't temporary, but this project does indeed seem dead.  So, maybe it should simply be merged into the main GNU article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY and every one is a dead link.  Googling turned up nothing useful.  Msnicki (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - Likely best option here given it won't meet N and while notability is not temporary, it is the questioned implimentation and lack of verifiability that prompts merge. And for dead links, try Archive.org. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep People, the links above to find sources are there for a reason. The topic meets WP:GNG, per the sources found by and because covered in a plethora of other sources. See short but meaningful mentions here and here, a whole academic paper on the GNU Enterprise development and another where included in a comparative analysis. Also let us remember that notability is not temporary and that the current activity status of the software has nothing to do with its notability.  -- cyclopia speak!  15:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've just mixed up WP:RS with WP:V. I would indeed consider your mentioned sources as reliable, but they nevertheless don't make the article verifiable, because they don't confirm any of the statements of the article. The academic paper deals with the software development model, something not even mentioned in the article. Can you find any reliable source that confirms that GNUe implements a full Enterprise Resource Planning system (as said in the article), or the support of any of the packages mentioned in the article? Can you find any reliable source for the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? It's open source software. Can you point me to the source code of the database layer that handles all the databases mentioned in Comparison of CRM systems? Can you find one single screen shot of the features mentioned in Comparison of accounting software? The article on Heise.de even contradicts the majority of the statements in the article by saying" "GNU Enterprise to date is only a (for the practicable use hardly usable) development environment for business applications" (translated from German). And the funniest thing is the citation for "Development status: Active", which is the projects website, unreachable for years. I do not care if the article is delete or not, but you should know, that I have the strong feeling that most of the assertions in the article do not represent facts but only the ambitious dream of one person which never came true (Vaporware). And that should not be part of a Wikipedia article. Huskytreiber (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant for deletion is that the topic is notable -and it clearly is. That the article contains original research and/or unverifiable statements is true but it is something that can be dealt with editing, not deletion, and as such our deletion policy asks us to not delete, explicitly. AfD is not for cleanup. I may agree with your assessment of issues within the article, but this just means it can be stubified and then rewritten following the sources. -- cyclopia speak! 10:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep—Per the sources found by . Notability is not temporary, and AFD is not for article improvement.  If it's covered in WP:RS, then it passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs)
 * Merge to GNU. There is every sign that this is a dead project that never delivered anything substantial.  The sources found by  are both passing mentions, not enough to meet WP:N.  The Salon article, especially, only mentions in passing that some other piece of software it is discussing may one day form part of GNUe.  The sources found be  are better but still mostly passing mentions.  Of the two substantial published papers, the Elliot and Scacchi paper is concerned with the culture of developers and is using GNUe as a case study.  It is not really telling us anything about GNUe itself, only verifying that there was active development in 2003.  The Erbizzoni et al. paper is behind a paywall and I would be very reluctant to accept for notability on the basis of what it says in the abstract (but would take on good faith comments from anyone who has read it).  Spinning  Spark  13:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to GNU. There is a clear lack of "Significant coverage" according to WP:GNG of the project itself or its outcomes. Notability may not be temporary, but it is neither for things that never really got going enough to rise into notability.  --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks meaningful coverage to establish notability. With the exception of the Erbizzoni, et al, article which I cannot review, all mentions are either in passing, only noting that the software exists, or otherwise not about GNU Enterprise (such as using it as a case study for something else.) OSborn arfcontribs. 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to GNU. There are reliable sources but the coverage is not of sufficient depth to justify a separate article. - MrX 01:28, 25 November 2013 (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.