Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hat MRG


 * 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   merge to Red Hat. Courcelles 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Red Hat MRG

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete appears not notable and promotional in nature. when googling finding sources from that developer Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It does look like it's allready covered under the Red Hat page so maybe a redirect. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect Google Scholar shows a couple of mentions in the context of AMQP (1) "Advanced message queuing protocol (AMQP)", Linux Journal, Volume 2009 Issue 187 and (2) "Developing Secure Agent Infrastructures with Open Standards and Open-Source Technologies", Highlights in Practical Applications of Agents and Multiagent Systems Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing Volume 89, 2011, pp 37-44. The MRG news stories I have found read like lightly edited press releases. These are probably not enough to establish notability for an independent article, but certainly warrant a merge/redirect to the Red Hat page, as suggested by the nominator. Mark viking (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My motivation for creating this Red Hat MRG article was not promotional at all. I was looking for a comprehensive description of MRG (just what it is? what is its scope? what does the acronym stand for?) and it turned out to be difficult to find in a single place. That's why i created the short article. If you think that its language is biased, and not objective enough, let's improve on that. But don't you think that having a text saying at least "MRG stands for ..." is worthwhile? --AlexandriNo (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a possible non-neutral point of view is not a basis for deleting an article. The issue is mainly with lack of references. For an MRG article to survive standalone, as opposed to a topic within the Red Hat article, the article needs to be verifiable through reliable sources (references). The Wikipedia standards also want reliable secondary sources, i.e., sources independent of MRG creators or sellers, to establish notability and a verifiable basis for a neutral point of view. These secondary sources could be for example reviews, books, or news articles on MRG from reputable news sources. If you know of reliable sources, secondary as well, please point them out. Thanks. Mark viking (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:04, 12 December 2012 (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.