Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Help Desk

Web Help Desk

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)[reply]

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

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]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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... 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 dissolution... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]