Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Allura

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Allura[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines WP:GNG. Common problem with several open source projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for a bit and couldn't find any significant coverage of this project at all. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two new sources were added to the article:

"SourceForge open sources its own source - The H Open: News and Features". The H. No. 11 March 2011. Heise. Retrieved 21 July 2016.

Proffitt, Brian (18 June 2012). "SourceForge back-end code to be donated to Apache". ITWorld. IDG. Retrieved 21 July 2016.Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, to allow time for new sources presented in the discussion to be considered. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sourceforge#History This has a claim of significance solely because of its association with Sourceforge. Sourceforge uses this as a backend code. They later decided to donate it to Apache as a means to keep the forge software open source. The sources available for this are significantly lower if I compare it to relevant software standards. I would say a redirect suffices here as much of the encyclopaedic information (Including the 2 sources above) are already there at the target article. A redirect is also a good option because (like with all software), there is a chance it may become notable on it's own in the future. In that case, we still have the article history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2016 (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.