Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Help Desk

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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Web Help Desk

Web Help Desk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lack any references to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In fact I found little myslef except for a small ammount promotional stuff. I cannot seeany notability in it. triwbe (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment IF the article can be improved within a specified time given by the editor who listed for deletion then the article can stay else it can be deleted. Kalivd (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply I think this goes without saying. But if I thought the article could be improved, I would not have nominated it; 1. I added notab tags and no references have been supplied, 2. I searched for refs myself. --triwbe (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment To clarify why this article exists, please see this page Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems. An editor of that page has been removing entire entries for systems that are lacking Wikipedia articles. A description for the Web Help Desk existed on this page for over a year, but was removed by User:Bonadea on 23 July 2008. For context, please view the articles for other systems listed in that table. Some Examples: HelpSpot or IssueNet. As a user of the Web Help Desk, and one knowledgeable about the history of its development, I believe that it does have a notable place in this particular group of software. If you could explain the greater notability of the other articles linked from that table, I would be very interested. BigAppleGuy (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)BigAppleGuy

Comment Although the article may need some reorganization or textual rewriting, if it is on version 9.x and has been around for 9 or 10 years, then it is not nearly as obscure as the editor nominating it for deletion claims. With all of the numerous obscure and truly meaningless articles listed on Wikipedia, you would think that certain editors would refocus their time and energies on some of articles that have been vandalized, turned into self-effacing promotional pieces or suffer from some other point of obvious bias in their reporting. This however, does not seem to be the case with this article or the software it refers to... I am not familiar with this software and have no involvement in it, but it seems to have a place of reference and importance, regardless of whether there are exogenous articles to support its necessity. If you are deletion-hungry, it may be more constructive to redirect your efforts to revising articles - there are plenty that are in desperate need - then simply promoting deletion... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply Please keep the comments limited to the discussion on weather this article is notable and if it can be shown to be notable. Personal opinions, other articles and comments about me have no bearing on this discussion and should be left else where, or more appropriately, left out completely. Show notability and references. That is what Wikipedia demands, not me. --triwbe (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep The CDW Solutions magazine article given as a reference describes how an organization used Web Help Desk running on Apple hardware and Linux as an alternative to costlier PC or Unix solutions. It explicitly states that the magazine is in no way affiliated with Web Help Desk. It is an independent source that satisfies the technical requirements of the notability guidelines. (Certainly in any practical sense, Web Help Desk is notable given its use by hundreds of major schools and corporations.) NDawg (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there appear to be little in the way of reliable sources. Of the references provided, only the CDW Solutions might represent support of notability. And based on the title of the title of the article, Web Help desk is not the primary subject of the article. This leaves no substantial coverage of the product. There are not sufficient reliable sources to establish [[WP:N|notability]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Actually having read the CDW Solutions magazine article, the Web Help Desk application is the reason the article exists. To discount an article based on the title alone is not a serious effort at discerning notability and should be rejected as fallacious logic. I believe the this article is an important entry that places the Web Help Desk in historical context within the evolution of web application technology. For readers interested in web applications, and help desk software, this entry has useful information. BigAppleGuy (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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.