Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemini Issue Tracker


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gemini Issue Tracker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. I cannot find any significant third-party coverage that would indicate this passes the general notability guideline. Article written by two fresh single-purpose accounts. Haakon (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable and an Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get this Delete thing as you have other articles like Fortress (software) that are not deleted. Can someone explain why Gemini Issue Tracker is more of an advert than other articles for similar products? KennyLids (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Request made on page for other users to contribute to the article KennyLids (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
 * With all due respect, a product that has been voted as the best in it's category by The Code Project (read: millions of Software Professionals), should be recognised. Furthermore, can you tell how another similar article Fortress (software) is notable and this is not? Would welcome your guidance. KennyLids (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that other stuff exists; Wikipedia is work in progress and cannot be expected to be consistent yet; instead there are guidelines that should guide all articles. It looks to me like Fortress (software) fails notability, and someone should perhaps nominate it for deletion, but that is not an argument to keep this article. You need to find significant third-party coverage of the product to indicate it passes WP:GNG; if that is not possible, then there is no notability (and I have looked and come up with nothing). Haakon (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your assistance and guidance - much appreciated. I would request that time is given to obtain other contributions and references. KennyLids (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, hope it helps. I have also made some changes to the article that should help, at least in appearance, but sources are still needed. An AfD lasts a week (or longer if there is no consensus), so there should be time to address the issues. Haakon (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added more notability by providing links to Gemini Issue Tracker as used by National Health Service and Math.net. KennyLids (talk)
 * I removed the section, given it had no independent, reliable sources. I didn't notice the AfD until after.  The article need independent, reliable sources that demonstrate it's notability. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added DotNetNuke as Notable User back in again this time with link to actual reference that proves usage credibility. 81.134.96.171 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a self-published source, and I've tagged as such. It's of no help in establishing notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am sure the guys over at DotNetNuke can update the page to confirm the source. Is that OK? 81.134.70.240 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that anything written by DotNetNuke would be acceptable because they wouldn't be considered a reliable source for such information that demonstrate the notability of Gemini. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious spam. Zero google books or news archve hits. Mr. KennyLids is welcome to nominate for deletion similar articles that fail WP:GNG. Pcap ping  19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establishnotability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (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.