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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidekiq[edit]

Sidekiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see the notability here. Demonstrated coverage consists of incidental mentions only (basically, "we used Sidekiq to do that"); plus one book source I can't check. Maybe that's considered sufficient for such appl;ications, but i don't think so. Ruby/netdev-savvy people please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sidekiq article is a stub about a component used in Ruby web software with heavy processing, like Diaspora or Mastodon open source social networks, GitLab or Discourse software. There are sources to computing conferences. The fact there are several "incidental mentions" in articles from several years show it's a well used software, and as such, is notable. As a "beyond the scene" "infrastructure" component, the visibility is perhaps difficult to see for final users, but from a Ruby web developer point of view, Sidekiq is notable. --Dereckson (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve. Downloads are a limited metric, but as a ruby developer I confirm the importance and prevalence of it. Here are some download stats from official Ruby Gem distro library Shushugah (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to follow the lead of people with greater knowledge here, but I'd like to point out that "The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve" is directly contrary to our requirements of established in-depth coverage. We don't create the coverage, we merely document its existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I learned a policy or two. There are many (non news) reliable sources for its notability, but most of them are not written in very accessible way. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. They also suffer from SEO problems when googling (Alexa ranking is fortunately not a factor for determining quality of citation), so Wikipedia plays a vital role in being that first stop. Shushugah (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still need to specifically point out these sources here to make the case ;) For referencing purposes, it's no problem if they are off-line or hard to parse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (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.