Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra (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 was   delete. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hydra (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. Has been PRODded and dePRODded. References all very thin - apparent magazine article appears to be company press release ("Copyright Hydra Management"). Other refs support the facts that it exist, is subsidiary of X, was recommended for purchase 7 years ago by Y. Does not appear sufficiently notable to have an article in the encyclopedia. A similar article appears to have been speedy-deleted G11 soon before the creation of this article - see User talk page on 10th Oct. Pam D  15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for the speedy deletion by dint of G11 see . The present page has also been deleted before, because of an expired PROD (see ). However, the concern given doesn't make sense to me, and may have referred to a different topic by the same name. --Lambiam


 * The Hydra article is no different from many other company listings such as @task. We are doing our best to meet your guidelines, every other product in the Comparison_of_project_management_software page has a similar page to what we are trying to create. — --Neil (talk)   15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't carry weight in these discussions. The concern here is that this software product is not notable. It is probably the case that there are many other articles on non-notable software; these should then also be deleted. If you want to argue that Hydra is notable, you should at least try to show it meets one or more of the inclusion criteria listed at Notability (software). --Lambiam 16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We have appeared in many project management magazines over the years but the nature of these is such that the articles are only available to subscribers and hence this content is not available on the internet. We attend the main UK project management trade show (http://www.projchallenge.com/exhibitor_page.cfm?id=251) and regularly come up against Oracle, CA, and Microsoft and win business over them. Just because there are only a few mentions of us on the public internet does not mean we are not of interest to people using Wikipedia. Along with this our founder Geoff Reiss is now a leading Project Management expert and has written several books on the topic(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gower-Handbook-Programme-Management/dp/0566086034/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-6 and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Management-Demystified-Geoff-Reiss/dp/0415421632/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-1).--Neil ) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles in a periodical do not have to be available online to be acceptable sources, and certainly not if the periodical is carried in major libraries. But the magazine's content has to be under editorial control aiming at responsible publishing standards (implying fact-checking and avoiding distortions). And for an article to count towards notability, it has to be independent of the subject. So newspaper or magazine articles written by company employees or based on a company's press releases don't count. And also, the coverage has to be non-trivial; mere routine reporting doesn't count. By the way, WP:USEFUL is another argument that carries no weight in this discussion. --Lambiam 21:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review the other 130+ articles about similar software and ensure they meet your notability guidelines. In terms of quality of content it would seem to me that having no comparison of products is better than having one which is incomplete. By not allowing the article you are preventing users finding this content yet allowing them to find similar content on other similar providers which is grossly unfair. The WP:OTHERSTUFF rules means there will never be consistency of content on Wikipedia and without consistency the content cannot be trusted to be accurate and complete.--Neil (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 11:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of notability, no reliable sources that are independent of the firm.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, since none of the sources appear to be independent of the software / company. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (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.