Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OTRS

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. FWIW I've used OTRS here, but I don't consider myself any more involved than I would on an AfD about Excel or microwaves. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article currently has no citations outside of the infobox (and the infobox itself only cites the official website). The text itself is very badly written as well. Quick google doesn't turn up any RSes. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As written, it does fail WP:N. But I found a few sources that suggest keeping is warranted: 1) dedicated academic conference paper 2) [1] another highly related, seems to be in a journal ([2]) 3) [3] academic theses on the topic. There seems to be a bit more on GScholar, overal, the academic treatment of this is likely sufficient for keeping. The nom should Google Scholar, not just Google, in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My Google Scholar search for OTRS along with "change management" has over 100 hits. [4] The article may be poorly referenced but it's certainly notable. Ifnord (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly has real world notability and plenty of coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly notable. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. There appears to be a German-language O'Reilly book on this software, which is clearly non-trivial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 24 February 2019 (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.