Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeamCity


 * 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 keep. Seems like we're generally satisfied with at least some of the new sources that were introduced. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

TeamCity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG and NSOFT after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. Fails GNG/NSOFT. No external coverage. South Nashua (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not even an article, just a few bullets marketing the product. W Nowicki (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am relisting this because the last comment was a substantial contribution of sources which I feel could plausibly affect the views of the previous contributors, especially given some were adding a !vote on the basis of a lack of sources.
 * Maintain it is one of the main actor in CD products like Jenkins, why deleting one and not the other ones? probably should be improved but not deleted. 27/03/2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.14.33 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment because Jenkins (software) has some secondary sources and a bit of content. We don't keep or delete content because other stuff exists, we judge each article on its own merits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete complete lack of secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSOFT.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of sources and a breach of multiple Wikipedia policies. Probably not a good idea to keep. Cheers, Friy Man  talk 06:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Poor state of article is not an argument for deletion, the question is whether or not there exist references to demonstrate the notability of this topic, even if article currently doesn't use any of them. And you can find quite a few books on Google Books and papers on Google Scholar discussing TeamCity. Just to give a selection, not an exhaustive listing:
 * SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I believe TeamCity is also discussed by SJK (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To evaluate the new sources.
 * Keep. Easily enough coverage in GBooks to establish notability. The nomination appears to solely focus on article state, and there is no evidence of searching for coverage behind any of the other Delete !votes. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's Greek to me but if there are multiple entire books written about it, and there does seem to be, then there's probably plenty enough out there to write a fine article. and as we sometimes need a friendly reminder of, articles content doesn't determine notability. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction. There are two self-books that are written about continuous integration and TeamCity is one tool involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better, there are also 300+ hits on Google Scholar, including a third book, 2,000+ hits in Google Books overall, and we'll just thrown in an an honorable mention in the news,, and why not, a nice fluffy industry review piece . And whatever continuous integration actually means, kindof makes sense that the software would be in books about doing what the software does.  Timothy Joseph Wood  19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per TJW, other should be pinged for reevaluation. L3X1 (distant write)  22:07, 19 April 2017 (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.