Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teamwork (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   no consensus.  Sandstein  12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork (software)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested proposed deletion. This is an advertising article for non-notable software, part of the "project management" mess. The page itself is simply a sales brochure containing a features list; nothing about the article suggests technical or historical importance. This is made by a business that does not have its own article. The only reference given is to a minor trade award, of a sort that cannot confer notability outside of a limited circle of interested people. This is a re-creation of content previously speedily deleted for failure to show minimal importance. It is not obvious that the handful of Google News archive results refer to this particular product. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Per the award. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, awards can provide evidence that the notability requirements may be satisfied, but they cannot in themself satisfy it. I'm not able to find a good amount of third party reliable sourcing for this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. In-depth comparative mention in RS  Marktstudie Kooperationssysteme see pages 72-74.  If there are spam issues, fix them.  Unable to comment on "This is made by a business that does not have its own article" but respectfully, I consider it a poor argument.  Power.corrupts (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also mentioned in Open Source: Kommerzialisierungsmöglichkeiten und Chancen für die Zusammenarbeit von Hochschulen und Unternehmen p91, not in-depth, but more more than passing mention. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * will anyone care in ten years? no this is not an encyclopedic topic that needs to be documented by an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Notability is not temporary. NW ( Talk ) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (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.