Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hula (software)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hula (software)
Advertising. Not notable. Sleepyhead 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It is a notable groupware application within the open source community. It has been the subject of considerable discussion on blogs. Rob cowie 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont delete. It is an important open source project. Glimpze 14:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Being released by Novell makes it notable, but 600+ Google hits doesn't. (Especially since this is a software - anything notable should score thousands of hits.) Maybe a merge and redirect to the right article listing Novell products? What say ye, open source editors? Johnleemk | Talk 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure number of Google hits is any measure of importance. How do we know Google isn't fiddling the results? Unlikely I know, but possible Rob cowie 18:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor. Johnleemk | Talk 00:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the simplest explanation for a large number of Google hits is that a topic is notable? Leaving aside disagreements concerning the definition of notability, it seems to me to be equally easy to assume that the large number of hits is due to a web-master 'cooking the books' with link spam etc. Nomatter; However I put it to Google, the smallest number of hits I get is 11,400 (with 'hula novell groupware'). If the article were a blatent ad, I'd vote for its deletion. I happen to think it isn't in this case. Rob cowie 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those hits are duplicates. I got fooled by those before, too. And it is not that easy to make such an assumption, as most Google searches reveal little tampering, and anyhow, I doubt Novell would resort to such underhanded measures to promote its product. And while one cannot immediately infer from many Google hits that a topic is notable, one can certainly infer that a topic is probably non-notable ("probably" because of Google's systemic bias in favour of English, computer-related and internet-age stuff, ignoring non-English content, etc.) from a lack of Google hits. Johnleemk | Talk 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Johnleemk Werdna648T/C\@ 09:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete advert. Stifle 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. Notable, but the article needs a lot of work.  My concern is whether the project is still alive and in active development (haven't heard much since it was announced).  Their subversion commit mailing lists does suggest that some people are working on it.--SirNuke 07:55, 14 January 2006 (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.