Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Release Management

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards transwiki. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Release Management
Not encyclopedic 66.216.68.28 17:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep While this is a dreadful article, the topic is encyclopedic. Keep and rewrite (and rename to correct capitalisation). By the way, anon's shouldn't be making VFD nominations, I believe, but let's leave this here. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Anyone can make a nomination, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users." --66.216.68.28 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Though only after complete rewrite. --Several Times 13:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. I agree with DJ Clayworth that this is a dreadful article, but worth trying to cleanup. Daedalus-Prime 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * After the cleanup that has been done so far (thanks Jbminn), I'll agree with Harmil and change my vote to Transwiki to wikibooks. Daedalus-Prime 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki I'm contacting the author of the original article now and asking him if he intended to release it under the GFDL, and if the submitter was really him. If I get a good answer there, I'll clean up the article, otherwise it needs to be speedied. -Harmil
 * Having contacted the author, I am satisfied that this is not a copyvio. However, in reading it more fully in preperation for an NPOVification and cleanup, I realize that this is actually a manual / HOWTO, not an encyclopedic entry. Thus, it makes more sense to simply transwiki this to wikibooks as it's a published article that has some relevance to the evolution of free software development. -Harmil 22:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless rewritten into proper article. To keep such drivel makes no sense. Pavel Vozenilek 23:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Revision control. Pburka 00:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This redirect would not be approrpriate given the incorrect caps. -Harmil 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep having worked in SE and SQA I am convinced an entry is useful. Merely redirecting to Revision control understates the importance of release management. Looking through job ads you will also see this is a specific role for which people are employed. 85.164.76.75 22:05, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.