Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openride


 * 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. Two sources have been found, but voters have strong arguments why these do not raise up to notability, and the arguments were not answered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Openride

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is orphaned, I think it does not meet the notability guidelines, has no citations, and its external links are dead Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 20.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I did find these: . GABHello! 21:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Delete - one article in Wired isn't enough to establish notability. Sorry about that. GABHello! 15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: GAB, the first link you included is actually not about the OpenRide software project from the German tech institute, but a completely unrelated startup in California that has also taken the name OpenRide. Uniphil~enwiki (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has atleast 2 reliable third-party sources last time I checked. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 11:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  07:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Not sure how good of a source the second link is, though. I'm on the fence for this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep as has some sources such as
 * 1) http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/04/18/sacramentostartup-wants-to-be-airbnb-of-carpooling.html
 * 2) http://www.gizmag.com/openride-mobile-service-organizes-carpooling-on-go/12823/
 * 3) http://www.wired.com/2009/09/hitchhiking-phone/
 * , as said above, your first source you mentioned is for a different project altogether. Nordic   Dragon  09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent sources. The Gizmag source states at the bottom that it is 'via Fraunhofer Institute', suggesting it is just a rehash of a press release. This leaves only the wired.com article as significant RS coverage, on its own insufficient to establish notability. The 'official site' is now a deadlink, suggesting that the project has been abandoned and no additional sources are likely to emerge.Dialectric (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The German project appears to have gotten a flash-in-the-pan bit of interest that quickly died, and it appears to be defunct. Information about them is completely swamped by the more notable and still ongoing American project by the same name, to the point where it looks as if the unrelated U.S. company has bought the original web address used by the German project. I agree that this present article should be deleted. Whether or not the American firm needs its own page or own section in some current page is a separate matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searches did not turn up any additional coverage other than what has already been discussed. I agree with 's assessment of the one source being a rehashed PR. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:26, 21 May 2016 (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.