Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GanttProject


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GanttProject

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable "project management" software, part of a great morass of WP:SPAM. Contested PROD, rejected by an IP editor. Google News Search archives yield only links to download pages, press releases, and links to specialist computing sites of limited circulation and interest. This page has been speedily deleted 4 times before as obvious advertising, suggest salting to prevent re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per this, this, this, and this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any consensus about whether these sources you found are more than specialist or technical publications of "limited interest and circulation?" - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that the coverage is or is not can only be based on someone's opinion which is why there is AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * [to Ihcoyc] This discussion is about a piece of software. Why are you quoting an irrelevant section of WP:CORP?--Michig (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC) As a 'product' of an organization perhaps? But as this is a non-commercial 'community' product, I don't feel that WP:CORP applies here, and the Google Books results hardly fall into the category of "media of limited interest and circulation".--Michig (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree, that is clearly notable coverage. Clicking on the Google News search I find  and other reliable sources giving it adequate coverage as well.   D r e a m Focus  00:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I've used it and it's really not very good, but the coverage is maybe enough to be kept.--Michig (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since potentially useful, free software should always have a place in WP. The article alone may attract others who can improve it, or upon it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources exist to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (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.