Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quartz Scheduler (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Quartz Scheduler (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a software program that does not indicate notability nor appear to be notable. It was nominated for CSD A7 by user:Whiteguru, but as it is not web content it does not qualify for that criterion (software products are explicitly excluded), it is not promotional and nor does it meet the definition of "no content" required for criterion A3 Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Due to no idea of notability, and lack of references to support the tiny amount of content there. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would have speedily deleted this article about an open source job scheduling service on the grounds of lack of content or context. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you would have made a serious error of judgement. If you read the definition of WP:CSD (no content) this doesn't actually meet the strict requirements of the criterion for having no content. Despite being short, there is more than enough context to make it clear what the subject of the article is, so WP:CSD cannot apply either. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: 7 hits for "Quartz Scheduler" on Google News. --M4gnum0n (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I admit I sometimes lean towards the "Xanadu" ideal that everything should be a link. Perhaps the entry for this can be in the Quartz disambiguation page and the entry can not be a link to a page. Would that be sensible? I have no feeling either way about whether this should be deleted. RayKiddy (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't normally include entries with no links unless they are to explain the word/concept that is never going to be done in an article, but even then we normally link to Wiktionary and/or a related article (e.g. Rich). The place to ask though would be talk:Quartz (disambiguation). A more usual solution would be to redirect the title to the company that makes the product. In this case "Terracotta, Inc" don't have an article but their principle product Terracotta Cluster does, and I don't think it likely that the company will in the near future get a standalone article outside that. Would that article be a suitable redirect target for "Quartz Scheduler" (the "(software)" disambiguator isn't required) - I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 20 April 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.