Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teambox


 * 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. Rationale in favor of deletion holds up to policy over keep !votes.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Teambox

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account self identified as the founder ("I am the founder of Teambox.") with no other edits other than to promote Teambox. Was speedied previously as spam under WP:CSD. References given are to small trade publications and splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is needed to include the project in the lists of Comparison of project management software and Project management software. In this listing, there are many other articles that don't even have references beyond their own blogs, like Redmine. The article has been written from a neutral, brief and descriptive point of view, just trying to complete the list of options. It is true that it was written by the founder, not trying to hide the fact, but that doesn't make a difference in the result. Michokest 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) — Michokest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Among its references ReadWriteWeb is cited, being a trustworthy source. The project is also mentioned in the printed version of Emprendedores, a printed magazine about startups. Michokest 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * References given are to splogs and self published PR pieces (such as the ReadWriteWeb piece Posted December 21, 2009 by Ignacio Garcia) and do not count as reliable sources.--Hu12 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. Products without articles don't get removed from lists like Comparison of project management software in order to encourage the creation of such articles; they get removed because, without an article that passes our inclusion criteria, such lists inevitably become dumping grounds for self-promoting external links, which are of use to nobody.  If your software has been reviewed in reliable sources that are completely independent of you, please provide links to them; none of the citations or external links currently in the article qualify.  If not, be aware that attempts to use Wikipedia as a SEO tool tend to backfire. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Hu12 (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a FOSS solution to replace proprietary ones like Basecamp. It has more external references than other FOSS solutions, like Collabtive, DotProject, OpenGoo. Proprietary apps listed like Goplan, ProjectPier and Open_Workbench have zero external references. If the given references can be considered as splogs, let's simply delete them and leave a small FOSS entry (link to repository, install guide) in the same way there are for other projects. —michokest (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept.--Hu12 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious spam. Note that google news archive is full of (false positive) references to the French telecom company teambox.fr, which has nothing to do with this product. Pcap ping  17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Teambox.fr is a french company completely unrelated to Teambox.com, based in Barcelona (Spain). —michokest (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Free open-source software. Samboy (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor is voting on all FOSS AfDs with identical reasons. Pcap ping  18:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Free open-source software" is not a measure of notability, just availibility...nor a valid reason to keep--Hu12 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FOSS projects are contributions where a big deal of work is made available to the community so anybody can use it. This kind of projects are rarely published in printed media because of their nature, but this doesn't make them less relevant IMO. —michokest (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It doesn't seem like real evidence this product is not widely known or used.  LotLE × talk  08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. New reference was published on ReadWriteWeb's frontpage. —michokest (talk) 9:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your second !vote . Additionaly the ReadWriteWeb piece is a splog and  a self published PR pieces, which do not count as reliable sources.--Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. has !voted twice, and is the article creator. Used IP  to create first vote..--Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2010 (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.