BugUp Tracker ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

My Name is Ben Blum. I have been working as a QA manager and would like to contribute from my experience to Wikipedia's readers. my first article "BugUp Tracker" was deleted claiming that the software presented was not notable enough. I requested some aids with regards to what proof is needed to show notability? I have reviewed several other bug tracking software that do exist in Wikipedia ( Action Request System, StarTeam and others. Are these bug tracking systems considered to be more notable than BugUp Tracker because of the fact that they are connected to BMC/Borland? is this the only reason? it should have no bearings when the competence of Bug tracking systems is being discussed and compared, yet both of them appear in Wikipedia and in the bug tracking systems comparison page ( Comparison of issue tracking systems). I am working on a series of articles that compare below the radar bug tracking systems, other than the more notable ones, such as JIRA or Bugzilla and more in the neighborhood of the aforementioned Action Request System and StarTeam. since i am planning more comparison articles, it would generate more reference material with Wikipedia to BugUp Tracker. If acclaiming notability resides within links outside of Wikipedia, feel free to google BugUp Tracker, for reviews. I can understand the scrutiny required from Wikipedia's editors to judge the material inserted into the database, yet with that being said, they should also keep an open mind for newcomers and data that is of interest to Wikipedia's readers. If there is no significant difference between the likes of Action Request System and StarTeam to BugUp Tracker, I request that my info page regarding this software to be reinstated. If there are actions needed for me to prove notability, please let me know what they are, instead of just answering that all the editors agreed that the software is not notable enough, with no response to my questions and arguments. thanks Benblum1 ( talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Cirt's close, could not be closed any other way. Benblum1: WP:GNG applies here. Notability is demonstrated by showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Tim Song ( talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any differently. If someone can provide independent sources that cover this software, it should be userfied for further work. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is generally a bad argument to make. I'm going to note that Action Request System appears quite notable [1], even if no independent sources have been added to that article; the same goes for StarTeam [2]. Not so for BugUp Tracker [3] [4]. Pcap ping 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply
• Advice Ben, we're not a reviewing medium. Our purpose is not to evaluate the quality of software, of books, or music, or scientific theories, or political ideas. That takes place in the outside world, and is best done in more conventional ways by people who take responsibility for their opinions by using their true name and staking their reputation, edited by people who take responsibility for choosing their reviews , and who stand behind the work they select to publish. What we do is summarize and distribute the information that such outside reliable sources publish, on the assumption that what they review and write about will be of sufficient interest. we reply on things being already judged important by others first, and described here second. When you have such sources, there can be an article. There are unfortunately quite a number of articles about programs and other things that have gotten into Wikipedia without such sources--some might in fact have them, and those can and will be fixed; some do not, and those can and will be deleted. People tend to judge us by our worst articles, and it our job to improve or remove them. What we certainly try to avoid is to add additional ones that people will question. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Question: so, if i understand your comment DGG, if i can locate reliable sources(sites with internet reputation??), that have reviewed a software (BugUp Tracker in this case), i can re-post my article, and add these sources as references, could appease the wiki editors as sufficient notability? 2-3 sources? quality of review? I am just trying to understand how decisions are being made. Thanks 79.176.57.29 ( talk) 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• "I'm not sure what you'd mean by "internet reputation", Wikipedia itself could be described as having internet reputation but it wouldn't meet the standard required for sources. Take a look at the general notability guidline, neutral point of view and reliable sources. They'll give some pointers. If you aren't sure if a source is considered reliable there is the reliable sources noticeboard where people will look at the sources you provide and advise. You can also use the helpdesk to ask for advice and various other mechanisms. You can also write up an article in your private userspace with the sources you intend to use, then come back here and people will often advise if it's suitable, though bringing it back here can sometimes be a more adversarial experience. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, could not realistically have been closed any other way. WP:WAX is not considered a strong argument. Stifle ( talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply