This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
I'm guessing that some spammer removed the page. Then this kind user recreated it on his own account, trying to figure out what to do about it. I found a previous case of a deleted page - for a real politician, running for a real office!! - but I could not figure out how to restore the page myself. Now that he's gotten alot of press coverage, and probably due to personal lobbying by the campaign, it is finally up again .
/info/en/?search=Seth_Moulton This is a huge travesty. Why is it so easy to delete real pages? Sigh. Thank you Encyclopedant! I don't work at Jetbrains, but I used TeamCity on my prior project. TC is referenced on the CI compariaon page,
/info/en/?search=Comparison_of_continuous_integration_software
That behavior also is similar to the above politician - he was listed on the page of candidates but with a red/no-such-link link.
@Encyclopedant, I hope you can elucidate us on how to help these problems!
Kissedsmiley (
talk)
14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Not really. See
WP:N. That's the guideline for determining what can and cannot be considered as notable. If no one writes about a subject, it's not considered notable. It applies to all products, people or objects.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
21:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)reply
SolarWinds breach
I've added back in a statement about the ongoing investigation related to the SolarWinds hack. I'm sure that it's noteworthy but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add since it's ongoing. Decided to be
WP:BOLD with it.
Ujwal.Xankill3r (
talk)
07:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The only reason I put that back in (with slight adjustments) is because the previous removal only talked about lack of sources. The rest of the justification here in talk was mostly about it being noteworthy and me voicing out the concern that it may still be inappropriate because it's ongoing. Thank you for linking to recentism, I'll keep that in mind.
Ujwal.Xankill3r (
talk)
05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply