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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem worth to keep it. The poor sourcing (e.g. [1]) and notability justifies removal I think. I believe that the only goal of this article is the promotion. I have requested speedy deletion in the past but it was reverted by JBW (see [15:56, July 21, 2021][15:18, July 21, 2021]) so I propose to delete it hereby. Any objections? AXONOV(talk)⚑ 09:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when Alexander says that I reverted his speedy deletion nomination, that means I declined the nomination because the article doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria. It wasn't an indication that I thought the article shouldn't be deleted. JBW (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your clarification. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 12:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The references include promotional websites, blogs, an interview with a person involved in the subject, pages barely mentioning the subject, and a couple that don't even mention it at all. Not a single one of them is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. JBW (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepRedirect to DigitalOcean or Stripe (company). Meets the minimum expectations of WP:GNG. The VentureBeat source has 164 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists VentureBeat as “Generally Reliable” (although the discussion appears to be stale). The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the title. As far as I can tell the author of the article is independent of the subject and WP:RSP lists the parent company, The Financial Times, as “Generally Reliable.” The InfoWorld source is mainly an WP:INTERVIEW so most of it would be considered a primary source, but there’s over 100 words in the introduction of non-interview content that is uninterrupted and nonrepetitive prose dedicated specifically to the subject. The main topic of the source is Libscore and it includes “Libscore” in the subtitle. As far as I can tell InfoWorld is reliable and the author is the editor at large of the site. I would argue that these sources have more than a trivial mention and that they meet the WP:GNG requirement that “multiple sources are generally expected.” Libscore also appears to be cited in Google Scholar articles as a reliable method of obtaining statistics. For instance, this UCOL paper. I think overall the sources are limited in number and quality, but I’m not sure if merging into DigitalOcean or Stripe (company) would make sense and Julian Shapiro doesn’t have an article. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant:The TNW source has 179 words of uninterrupted and nonrepetitive... Thanks for heads up. That source is basically enumerating a list of Libscore features in increasingly advertising manner. The linked domain of latter isn't leading to Libscore: [2]. I disagree that this is reliable in any way.For instance, this UCOL paper. Well, I think this isn't enough for a separate article. I think it would much better to save some of this information in DigitalOcean article. The Libscore may be redirected to a relevant subsection. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexander Davronov: I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the URL not working. From what I understand defunct websites can still be notable. Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is, in fact, a paid promotion as opposed to a positive review? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant:Is there a way to confirm that the TNW is .... a paid promotion Hardly I know any one of. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 09:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 18:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, possibly turning this into a stub. Initially I thought this was a promotional piece for non-notable defunct software, but when I looked deeper into the content, I found sufficient number of reliable sources hiding amid the poorly written content. The poorly written/unsupported content can be removed or replaced. I volunteer to do the cleanup. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to cite them? AXONOV(talk)⚑ 10:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Response to discussion above about merger: TipsyElephant and Alexander_Davronov, I oppose merge into DigitalOcean and Stripe (company) because it is a separate unrelated project. These companies provide resources (financial and server time), but are not affiliated with the project directly. The mere fact that there is ambiguety which one of the two unrelated companies would be the better merger target suggests that neither one is a good merger target. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with you unless sources proving otherwise are provided. AXONOV(talk)⚑ 20:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 7 August 2021 (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.