Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Continuum

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. v/r - T P 08:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Continuum[edit]

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

The article is essentially empty. When I look for sources using "Apache Continuum" I cannot find any reliable sources. It does not appear to meet even WP:GNG. I suspect a merge to the associated Maven article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) An article being "essentially empty" just means it's a stub. From stubs great articles can grow. (2) I was able to find reliable pretty quickly (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). (3) The sources I found are sufficient for WP:GNG at least. (4) No opinion on a merge proposal but I suggest it be done in the usual way as I see no reason to delete this article as it stands. --Tóraí (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you read GNG? Those "sources" do not qualify as

significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject.

They really do not lend any credibility to the existence of this as a stand-alone article. The fact that it's been a stub for more than two years does not help your case. And of course, just as it says in the guideline related to stubs, "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Apache Software Foundation projects - software article lacking independent references to establish notability, and a search did not reveal significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple article describing an integration server. Ideal for those who want to find out what it is, at a glance, you could say encyclopedic. scope_creep talk 15:12 02 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It is like the other projects. Dependable references need to be added.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other projects are you referring to? My search found no independent, significant coverage reliable sources, and there's no way to add them if they don't exist.Dialectric (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are in-depth articles on continuum at Packt and Java.net. There is an interview with one of the developers at [4], but I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. Continuum is discussed extensively throughout the book Apache Maven 2 Effective Implementation. The Maven book and the Java.net article are enough to establish WP:GNG notability. The Packt article is also an RS and contributes, but is not entirely independent of the Maven book. The IBM Developerworks article mentioned by Tóraí also has some information on continuum and places it in the context of other CI systems. The article needs sources added, but this and other problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2014 (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.