Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getting Things GNOME!


 * 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. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca  talk 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting Things GNOME!

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

Prod removed. Nonnotable software, no indication of notability. I see no sources outside of the typical sourceforge sources, and more imporantly, no indication is given in the article Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I added some argument on the discussion page. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Getting_Things_GNOME! ). The main arguments are an article about this software notability are a reviews on Ars Technica and LifeHacker (two websites that have a wikipedia entry about them). Also, LifeHacker is not at all related with the OpenSource/Software world, meaning that GTG has reached a broader audience than the core Linux users. Also, GTG has an entry on French wikipedia with contributions of two established wikipedian. As such, it looks like GTG has reached a notability already greater than some other GNOME software with existing wikipedia pages (Galago_(software) for example). Admitelly, the software is young (less than a year) and its success is even younger (steadily growing since March 2009) but I, as a non experienced wikipedian, believe that the relatively young age of the project is not a discriminant factor. I'm of course biaised about this, being one of the developer, but I try to be as honnest as possible ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeploum (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the Ars and LifeHacker articles. Those are both particularly big blogs, so being mentioned in them is a decent indication of notability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm sorry but most blogs, regardless of the size, aren't reliable sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete While a newsvine can indicate notability, a blog generally does not. Unless there is something else to indicate notability I'd say delete.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability.  Triplestop  x3  02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, not many sources. The Weak Willed 19:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability, lifehacker is not an indication of notability. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:56, 29 July 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.