Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Web Analytics

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. keep arguments don't reference GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Web Analytics

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

The article fails our requirements for notability, the notability tag on the article is more than 2 years old. I made an attempt to find coverage of the article in reliable sources but couldn't. Currently the article only uses blogs and the software's own wiki as references. The article was created and primarily edited by the software's author (Peter Adams). -- Atama頭 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say that Wikimedia using this software as Web Analytics for the WMF and all its wikis count as a reliable source. Article simply needs updating with references. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Really? Is something notable because it's used by Wikimedia? I must have missed that part of WP:N. If you can find reliable sources, by all means present them, and I'll consider withdrawing this nomination. Otherwise I don't understand your argument at all. -- Atama頭 17:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use by Wikimedia is not sufficient for WP:N and I can't find much in the way of coverage, just some brief mentions in lists of other similar products. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator and Tijfo098. Perchloric (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just having the WMF use it is not enough for notability. But this and Piwik are two of the most notable open source Web analytics toolkits currently available. See additional coverage from an InformationWeek magazine article and in the book "Web analytics 2.0". Those took me about five minutes to find in Google, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more. Steven Walling 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think you'd need to find more. The Infoweek article merely mentions the name of the software once in passing in a discussion about Web Analytics, and the book is the same case. We look for "significant coverage" to establish notability, and neither of those sources seems to satisfy our general notability criteria in my opinion. -- Atama頭 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if you look around, both in search engines, books, magazines, and in our own categories, you can clearly see this is one of the two most prominent open source Web analytics packages. If something is obviously prominent in its field, you don't need a million sources to prove it. Case in point: both Cisco (PDF release notes) and one of the largest hosts on the Web, Dreamhost (see announcement) provide OWA. Steven Walling 17:06, 9 May 2011 (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.