- Harvest (time tracking software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Draft : User:Srinath10/Harvest_(time_tracking_software)
The original page was incomplete before deletion. It lacked content, and contained few notable sources. Since deletion, I added several secondary and reliable sources to demonstrate significant coverage of Harvest (time tracking software) at the request of administrator in charge of deletion Arbitrarily0.
Because of a unanimous consent to delete, Arbitrarily0 further requested that this page go through deletion review to achieve a counter-consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinath10 (talk • contribs)
- Allow new article creation. AfD was closed properly. However, Srinath10's user draft improved on the version deleted via AfD. I would not delete this article under G4 were it already created; it should be allowed into mainspace. If it's still felt not to be notable, it can be listed for a second AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not yet The userspace article is unreliably referenced and contains material that is not about the software in order to try and fluff out the references. The intro is sourced to blogs. The second section, DIY UX, is referenced to a blog and slideshow presentation given by an employee. The third section is about the company, not the software. It contains a reliable source but it is not about this software but some other project of the company. The further reading section looks like it has material from RS, but WP:N: "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation" and "announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined". I haven't examined them but I don't see where this article has demonstrated anything more than existence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Not a DRV case so allow recreation but advice against. This doesn't seem to be a DRV issue as the original deletion is not being contested, and as the title is not protected they're perfectly entitled to move this back to main space without first getting permission. I also think the changes to it mean it wouldn't be a G4 candidate as the page is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" and so excluded. That said I'd advice against creation at this time as it's nearly certainly going to get deleted again if taken to AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Permit re-creation--I think the NYT article is enough to demonstrate notability DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- "The two own Iridesco, a Web design company, and their greatest success so far has been a project called Harvest — online time-tracking software designed to help small businesses keep tabs on billable hours, expenses, invoices and projects." That is the entirety of the NY Times mention. It is not enough. The NY Times article is not about Harvest, it is about a web page about clocks and the article mentions in passing that they also wrote this software. That doesn't demonstrate notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Wait until someone who is rather less obviously here to promote their project writes a proper article. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wait. I agree you can freely move it to mainspace, but the sources are weak at best. Other than the NYT mention you've got only blogs. The sources are enough to avoid a G4, but not enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
|