Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanban Tool


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Kanban Tool

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software (per GNG/CORPDEPTH). Insufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources available. Almost exclusively edited by SPAs (including two different ones that removed CSD tags). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Kanban (development) (which has been up for AFD for a while, for which i voted !Keep... this new AFD is presumably related). The sources here support the importance of Kanban in the software development area.  -- do  ncr  am  21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this merge: development practice and piece of software are distinct topics, and coverage of development practice does not benefit from description of individual tools. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Close debate and merge - the suggestion to merge is a common outcome for subsidiaries, and AfD is not the proper forum any more. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm not clear on this. It sounds like you're calling the AfD invalid as a request to merge, but it's not. Nor is merge the only logical avenue (or even a desired outcome). It isn't a subsidiary of any other organization['s article] as far as I can tell, but an application to help with the kanban method, AfDed just as I would for Bob's graphic design app rather than merge into graphic design. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically Rhododendrites is right that whether a redirect is to be kept or not is still open for discussion, and is a proper subject for AFD, but I think Bearian is clear that B supports merger and redirect of this without deletion. Looking at the material in the article, including this review of Kanban software development tools (which includes review of the Kanban Tool one among others), i think it has pretty valid material worth keeping.  The graphic provided in this article seems especially helpful to use at the merge target article as one example of a visual aid (visual obviousness is core concept in the manufacturing kanban analogy), and I think it would be fine to explicitly mention the "Kanban Tool" company there and some other tool-providers in the article and/or as external links.  I don't think it gives undue promotion to the Kanban Tool company to leave a redirect behind;  it is possible in the future that a separate article on it would be justified, and a redirect just keeps the edit history. -- do  ncr  am  17:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern re: Bearian is that it seems like he's making a procedural point, which, since I don't understand what basis it has is cause for pause coming from an admin (as someone likely more knowledgeable than I in certain policy nuance as well as someone who can act on said policy).
 * As far as notability, I think our standards for reliable sources and what degree of sourcing is sufficient just differ. That toolsjournal.com "review" (scare quotes because it appears to be a couple sentences of promotional copy in a list of 15 on a website of generally dubious reliability) would not, as far as I'm concerned, justify mentioning anywhere except maybe in a long list with several of these other relevant programs that are equally not notable. Merge assumes more than mentioning the name "Kanban Tool." It implies taking the content of one article and merging it into the content of another -- which would be undue. I have no doubt anybody with a little marketing savvy can get a piece of software listed at some industry software "community site" (as toolsjournal calls itself). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The current refs are a blog, an incidental mention, and the killerstartups interview which is quite brief and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search reveals additional incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. A merge is not appropriate in this case because there is nothing to merge. Kanban Tool is not a subsidiary of Kanban (development), and software entries are typically removed from list and overview articles (with the exception of parent company articles) when the software is not notable enough to have a standalone page.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (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.