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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spacewalk (software)

[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though a Google search on the term "Spacewalk Software" only generates 494 hits, still, within the Linux software development industry niche that this software serves, it appears to be noteworthy. Another consideration is the fact that this software is a 'systems level' type of software, so the only people that it will be notable to is software engineers. True, the Linux software development community may not be as large as the Windows software development community, but it is still a noteworthy community, as it represents perhaps only one of two viable alternatives to Windows software that is out there. The other viable alternative being the Mac operating system. Relative to the size of the community, and bearing in mind the fact that it is a specialized 'systems level' type of software, I think 494 Google hits is definitely noteworthy within the noteworthy niche community that it serves. The Spacewalk website itself appears to be a very highly developed site, but the article itself seems to still be a 'stub article', and could use some fleshing out. Thus I recommend Keep, and I would add, please flesh out a little. Scott P. (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't show notability. Keeps that ignore guidelines don't help save articles. Joe Chill (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising (systems management solution) that doesn't even meet the general notability guideline (Linux software development industry niche) . Not every tool used by software engineers is a potential encyclopedia subject: in fact, very few of them are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that software engineers are a noteworthy community, and that they deserve the ability to use Wikipedia as a reference work, just as much as say physicists or doctors. I was once a software engineer myself, and it seems to me that by removing this article about such an open source free Linux software program, you might be doing software engineers a disservice. By keeping it, Wikipedia loses nothing, and merely enhances its value to its users. The article is clearly not placed as an advertisement for the purpose of financial gain, since the program is freeware. Scott P. (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Ihcoyc's regular POV pushing for his own software notability standard. Just ignore him. Pcap ping 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify its own article page at the present time. See WP:GNG. Even the Red Hat article has no mention of this project. Annette46 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- magazine.redhat.com/2008/08/06/video-spacewalk/. Pcap ping 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 82 google archive news hits on "redhat spacewalk" [1], amongst them The Register [2], Network World [3], CNET [4], InformationWeek [5], Forbes (google link is dead), heise.de [6], etc. Some of the mentions are more trivial than others, but it's clearly an important part of RedHat's infrastructure. The wiki article can definitely be expanded based on all that. Pcap ping 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is an important part of RedHat, then maybe some information belongs there. This is not independently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep sources are somewhat trivial, but seems to meet the letter and spirit of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written article that adds worthwhile information to Wikipedia. RHN is the way that sysadmins manage RHEL systems. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 21:34, 8 January 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.