Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Bmusician 03:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confluence (software)
- Confluence (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability of this software is not established. All the references are either primary, obscure or don't quilify for in depth coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Christ. Don't you have other problems? I hate how Wikipedia paladins go on everyones nerves with their deletion crusade. Isn't the purpose of this web site to collect information? Why do you want to destroy it? --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of this site is to collect information on notable topics and to avoid collecting other information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Establishing notability is just a matter of looking for sources. For starters, here is a review by ]
- Don't think that indiscriminate collection of collaboration software reviews or comparison of three platforms helps in determining notability. The eWeek reference probably counts, though it is clearly an exempt from press release. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The WP:GNG. Also Social Media Marketing For Dummies describes it as "emergent enterprise social software" that is "becoming an established player", so it certainly has received significant attention. Diego (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The point about the indiscriminate collection was not about WP:MILL, so I wouldn't consider this source to indicate notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The point about the indiscriminate collection was not about
- Excuse me, can you point me where in the notability guidelines is included this "principle of subject choice" for which comprehensive coverage of a topic by a reliable source means that the source can't notice subjects in the topic enough to write about them? That criterion is not reasonable; it would imply that we couldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as confering notability about words, not The New York Times about events, because those sources aim for comprehensive coverage of every word and every noteworthy event.
- No, the idea (and the letter) of ]
- OK, if you want the bureaucratic approach at policy, per presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below". In order to prove the correctness of this presumption please explain, what is this software notable for? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For appearing at ComputerWoche, Social Media Marketing For Dummies, eWeek, and Socialsoftwarematrix, who noticed the sofware enough to write about it? Given that it's not excluded under What Wikipedia is not, the presumption of notability granted by the WP:GNG means that we should attempt to follow it and keep the article, unless we build a consensus here that we should skip this particular article. (If by "what is this notable for" you mean "why is it important", I'd say that being used by Adobe Systems, Bloomberg LP, Cisco Systems, IBM, Johns Hopkins University, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, United Nations and Weill Cornell Medical College gives it a head start; but please understand that the Notability guideline doesn't care about what you or me think about the software importance, that's why it delegates to reliable sources as you pointed out). Diego (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of us definitely misreads the WP:NOT, it is presumed notable unless there is a reason to think otherwise. In this case the reason is that the article about this software can't be substantially different from the article on the software genre, as this software doesn't differ substantially from all the other similar software of the genre. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We can't have this article because it will look like another one" is easily the most surrealist reason for deletion I've seen at AfD. We're reading the notability guideline in exactly the same way; it's just that the reason you give to delete per WP:NOT is not actually in WP:NOT. (We don't have an article on the "software genre" Enterprise wikis BTW, just one section at Wiki software. This article is substantially different to the other articles for software listed there, as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies). Diego (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies" — that was the point. It is all the difference, which at best warrants mention in parent topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We can't have this article because it will look like another one" is easily the most surrealist reason for deletion I've seen at AfD. We're reading the notability guideline in exactly the same way; it's just that the reason you give to delete per WP:NOT is not actually in WP:NOT. (We don't have an article on the "software genre"
- One of us definitely misreads the
- For appearing at ComputerWoche, Social Media Marketing For Dummies, eWeek, and Socialsoftwarematrix, who noticed the sofware enough to write about it? Given that it's not excluded under What Wikipedia is not, the presumption of notability granted by the WP:GNG means that we should attempt to follow it and keep the article, unless we build a consensus here that we should skip this particular article. (If by "what is this notable for" you mean "why is it important", I'd say that being used by Adobe Systems, Bloomberg LP, Cisco Systems, IBM, Johns Hopkins University, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, United Nations and Weill Cornell Medical College gives it a head start; but please understand that the Notability guideline doesn't care about what you or me think about the software importance, that's why it delegates to reliable sources as you pointed out). Diego (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if you want the bureaucratic approach at policy, per
- Keep. This is a well-established product under active development. I am quite willing to do the groundwork of looking for sources. QA Eric (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is one of the most common and popular wiki software packages and there is a large number of reliable sources that speak about it. Nomination of an article that so obviously passes general notability guideline is frivolous and bordering on disruptive. Steven Walling • talk 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added three substantial books that verify key facts about Confluence, and one of them has an entire chapter about the software. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from reliable sources I may conclude that it can "one of the most common and popular wiki software packages" only if the phrase "most common and popular wiki software packages" refers to all wiki software. Still, if it is indeed popular, may be you could at least take care to rewrite Features section not to rely on primary sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From your comments and use of the "primary sources" tag, it seems to me that you don't fully understand how primary sources work. They are perfectly valid and considered reliable for self-description, especially in articles about themselves. There's nothing wrong with a section that relies on primary sources as long as it complies with all requirements at Wikipedia:SELFPUB. There's no need to rewrite that section since it doesn't make any exceptional claim, only a list of the main features as documented and advertised by the company. Diego (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but self-published sources (eg., expert's blog) and primary sources (eg. company's site) are different type of sources, with the latter explained in WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material may require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there's nothing interpretative at the Confluence (software)#Features section. Its contents are a direct assertion of the software intended capabilities by the company that created it. I'd say the official web site is both a primary source and self-published and talking about themselves, unless you count the site as a reliable source. In neither case a third party, secondary source is required. Diego (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but self-published sources (eg., expert's blog) and primary sources (eg. company's site) are different type of sources, with the latter explained in
- From your comments and use of the "primary sources" tag, it seems to me that you don't fully understand how primary sources work. They are perfectly valid and considered reliable for self-description, especially in articles about themselves. There's nothing wrong with a section that relies on primary sources as long as it complies with all requirements at
You've been quite active at copyediting and clean-up of the article, BTW. Does it mean that you find its current notability state acceptable now? Diego (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose its inclusion due to lack of "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (]
- Keep, per above. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.