Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beanstalkd

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beanstalkd[edit]

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

For all I know, this might possibly be notable , but the article doesn;t show it DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS references; no references, at all, for that matter DocumentError (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some sourcing, however this article would need an overhaul, for now I won't vote, but if the article improves it sourcing and format, my vote is keep, otherwise, its current status is unbearable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking RS refs - refs provided are blogs and a developer's site. A search reveals more blogs, how-to pages, and developer's sites, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no references the way Eduemoni suggested. However, if that editor does have references that help confirm notability, they should be provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Found quite a few mentions in reliable sources (books, academic journals, theses & other academic papers, etc.), however they are generally brief, one-sentence sorts of mentions. Like "we used beanstalkd," or "there are lots of queueing systems, inclyding x, y, z, and beanstalkd." I may have overlooked some good reliable sources that cover beanstalkd in depth, and if so please cite them, but my current opinion is that even though the article can be improved a bit with reliable sources, the topic still won't meet WP:N notability. ––Agyle (talk) 04:32, 12 January 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.