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. —fetch ·comms 02:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This speedy deletion was overturned at DRV, with a note should be taken to AfD for notability.

As nominator I say this does not show any reference demonstrating notability and it should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observium (sometimes as its previous name Observer) has had some mentions in relevant places in the past few months: [1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamathefrog (talk • contribs)

Comment. This article was previously nominated for deletion, the result of the discussion was "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a PHP/MySQL-based Network Observation and Monitoring System (NOMS) which collects data from devices using SNMP and presents it via a web interface, as such of interest chiefly in the back rooms where network administrators work. Without some kind of showing that this particular product has some sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that makes it stand out among the many similar products and gives it long term historical significance, I don't see it as meriting a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Observium is unusual because of its design ethos. It's intended as almost zero interaction from engineers. The quote above brings to mind Cacti, of which Observium is virtually the polar opposite of in terms of design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamathefrog (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article plus those mentioned above (which overlap) would seem to surpass WP:N's requirements. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems demands having a dedicated Wikipedia article for every system listed. - Klaver (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Klaver, however the software is currently version 0.1... so its pretty beta even for that list. THE KING (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THE KING misunderstands how versioning of open-source software works. It's actually reasonably common to never, ever hit 1.0. 1.0 is often just a psychological goal of everything being perfect. Observium's current versioning scheme is 0.<year>.<month>.<revision>. (also note there was never a 0.1, the software was released as 0.3 in 2006.) Adamathefrog (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (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.