Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agilo for Scrum

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. Discounting the sudden and suspicious influx of new users, there is a pretty broad consensus that this fails inclusion criteria. In recognition of the last-minute addition of possible references, I would suggest that interested editors may consider producing a properly sourced version in userspace and re-creating when it is up to standards. Shereth 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agilo for Scrum

Contested prod. Article is about a software program, but I can't find any reliable sources that support its notability. Links provided are either to an official site, press release, or articles written by the software's maintainer. TN X Man 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well also Trac is about a Software Program, and all the pages belonging to Open Source and Project Management Tool are Software Programs so what? Agilo is Free, and Open Source, has a Growing Community of people and is enlisted on Open Source platforms as well. 80.153.177.13 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources seem to be available to demonstrate the notability of this software. None of the claims have reliable sources (other than the subject itself) backing them up, so the result of this discussion should be delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that provide any evidence this is notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the GNG. When oh when will we have an A7 speedy for software? On further reflection I think it's a borderline G11 speedy with a big dollop of WP:NOTMANUAL. ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have at least 2 sources which establish notability: [1], [2] Unomi (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borderline G11 for non-notable software; the above references do not suffice to establish notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one of the most used Scrum Tools (and the best Scrum Open Source Tool for sure). I think there was also some article in the well known German iX magazine about it. But the article needs some love for sure. If we can keep this a bit longer, I can try to improve it. --Robjenssen (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)_{user has made one edit outside of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete, notability not established. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What software is notable enough? Why not add basic information about younger software, especially when based on Open Source? Unless there are specific rules about these issues, I would keep the article, and only require a neutral re-write if needed. Largus (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC) _{user has made no edits outside of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep I've included another external link to the current edition of the Germans IX magazine regarding Agilo for Scrum erikman001 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)_{Account created today --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep I think notability is about providing consistent references on the existence of the product and on the fact that there is a user community that publicly recognizes the value of the tool. I would like to point out that there are companies that are trying to "eat out" references of the competition in every community site. Agilo has been under attack from ScrumEdge since a couple of weeks, they entered blunt advertisement and links to their sites in ohloh.net, freshmeat.net, getsatisfaction.com and in other places, may be they have a feet in this door too? ANdreaT (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I vote Keep? I also just joined today, but I use this tool daily and I love it. Also I removed the marketing speak as good as I can and translated the introduction of the german article which I think is much better. --Marne Hitacker (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask - *where* are you all coming from? The only time this happens is when a) the same person registered multiple times or you are directed to come here from a forum. Which is it? please don't waste my time with "oh it was random chance" - 6 new editors on an afd? it doesn't happen by chance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of sources.--Otterathome (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It's notable (see ref) ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:24, 11 June 2009 (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.