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. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket.Chat[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Article about an open source competitor to Slack that appears to have been written by the software's creator. It gets a fair amount of press coverage, but mainly in articles about possible alternatives for workplaces to use instead of Slack, or in software listings of similar products. I don't feel the coverage amounts to what is needed under WP:ORGDEPTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete: (Note: I declined the speedy deletion on this article) At least from online sources, this software appears to have a large number of sources covering it to a very minimal extent (most articles simply discuss it briefly as a competitor to Slack. I concur that it contains too trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG. It is relatively new software so it might be simply a case of an article written too soon. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per new sources below, particularly the InfoWorld source, and article improvement, revised position to Keep. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no question about it, a clear spam campaign with all the contributed signs. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gabriel Engel from Rocket.Chat here. I don't understand how, a community of contributors and users of an open source project trying bring awareness to a free alternative to expensive paid collaboration applications, can be considered a spam campaign. Honestly, this is disheartening. Our project is a result of the collaboration of 100s of developers from over 40 countries. It has been used in many government institutions, universities, NGOs, companies and has been scientifically proven promote innovative entrepreneurship on a experiment by the Centre for Economic Policy Research. If Wikipedia's policies won't allow the page about a free award wining platform used by millions of people to collaborate better, fine, I accept it - I'll be deeply disappointed and thinking that this policies may be preventing Wikipedia from doing some more good to the world, but I accept it. What I cannot accept is for our community to be branded as "a clear spam campaign". If you think that the article should be improved, please let our community know what to fix, but I honestly believe it would be a mistake to deleting it. Gabriel engel (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because open source software with paid services is becoming a major business model (see Red Hat for probably the most prolific of these). Your website suggests this is also your business model. It's a fine business model, but to suggest that promoting a free product that you make money off of by providing services towards is not a type of spam is a bit disingenuous. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am being disingenuous. The platform has the most permissive license, MIT, and no enterprise version or paid only features. We only make money from providing custom development and support. All the governments, universities, NGOs, and other institutions mentioned above that are benefiting from the project have paid absolutely nothing to us.Gabriel engel (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused. I looked at the references from related articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appium I honestly cannot understand how their references meet the guides and ours doesn't. As you can see on the article's history, it was considered for deletion but "declining because of changed circumstances since 2013: "Appium win in 2014 the Bossie award of InfoWord about the best open source desktop and mobile software". Repost to AfD to challenge notability again." Isn't this double standards? Both projects have won the same awards, but in our case this is not considered as important. Gabriel engel (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is worth mentioning that The Linux Foundation is using the Rocket.Chat platform as the community collaboration tool for the Hyperledger Project: https://www.hyperledger.org/community Gabriel engel (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Wired, InfoWorld, Opensource.com, VentureBeat taken together are sufficient for software to meet WP:GNG IMO. --Tóraí (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Summoned by Gabriel engel via my talk page. As Tóraí noted, the platform is covered in multiple reliable sources: Venture Beat, Wired, Volume Labs, Steemit, Tech Republic, and PC-Tablet. The sources actually detail the subject, its not just a passing mention. Also, the subject has won two awards. Meatsgains (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, as I said on my talk page, we need to give caution to Gabriel's COI i.e. "Our project is...", "...and ours doesn't", "...benefiting from the project have paid absolutely nothing to us" (bold emphasis done by me to highlight pronouns). Meatsgains (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable software; sources are weak and awards are not significant and well known. The content is advertorially toned and belongs on the project's web page, not here. See for example:

"In an interview with Open Source Delivers, founder Gabriel Engel said: “[…] above all, it’s the collective effort of the community, pushing the project forward. It’s really unbelievable at times to see that kind of dedication and how far we’ve come.”

I assume this is the same Gabriel Engel who has commented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviewing the sources again, I stand by my original opinion that the coverage does not meet what we are looking for under WP:ORGDEPTH. Most of the sources are simply inclusions of the company in a list, and as K.e.coffman has pointed out, the awards are not significant awards. That combined with the WP:PROMO nature of the article, means that we should delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 28 February 2017 (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.