Talk:Apache Bloodhound

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

Possible COI

This page has been created by Joachim Dreimann, a WANdisco Employee and Apache Bloodhound PMC member. Although a COI exists, I've attempted to provide a balanced view of the project which I believe is valuable for Wikipedia users and those researching the open source bug tracking software market. I have done my best to reference all statements but welcome any feedback or edits where explanations or other details appear unbalanced. Jdreimann (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, and welcome. Thanks for contributing, and thanks for declaring the potential conflict of interest. So far it's only referenced by primary sources, so I suggest that we improve the article with some reliable WP:Secondary sources. I'll have a dig. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Notability Banner

I'd like to remove this banner:

And maybe add one on Conflict of Interest instead:

Any thoughts? -- Mattsenate (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind adding the COI, but the refs don't seem to merit removing notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Status of Apache Bloodhound

Researching for my next wiki setup, I came upon Apache Bloodhound, only to discover that it appears moribund. No one has had the courtesy to acknowledge this in its Wikipedia article. While I see value in keeping the article as a historical reference, I feel the current state of the article fails to convey the important point that this software is dependent on deprecated software, is no longer safe for use from a supportability point of view, and therefore the article misrepresents it. I wrote an edit to address this, but it was reverted by one of the page's maintainers. All I reported was facts as I observed them, properly citing published meeting notes from the Apache website and reporting that support links from the Bloodhound website were all broken. This is the first time anyone has ever reverted one of my edits. I don't care if my words are used to clarify the article, but I do care that Wikipedia reflects reality on the ground. What exactly is the current support status of Apache Bloodhound? What is the Bloodhound team doing about broken support links? Will Bloodhound work in a Python 3 world by January 1, 2020? Who is taking responsibility to keep this article up to date? Who gains by having this article misrepresent the state of Bloodhound software?

Ydhirsch (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Doug Hirsch[reply]

@Ydhirsch: Thanks for researching this, but per WP:NOR, we cannot have original research. If you have reliable sources that state this, you could supply them. If there are few sources, we could discuss deleting the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the authoritative source, the published meeting minutes from the Apache web site, recording that Apache Bloodhound Project Management Committee voted unanimously in 2016 to close the project. That is not original research. Nor is my summation of the more recent minutes on that same web page, that no substantial work has happened since, particularly the lack of discussion addressing the coming Python transition. As the Wikipedia article already reflects, no release has happened since 2014. Obviously, the broken links surrounding Bloodhound support are original reporting. I no longer have interest in Bloodhound software, but I do what I can to help keep Wikipedia accurate. What to do? Was your reversion simply because my text was too extensive? Would you welcome as shorter version?

Ydhirsch (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Doug Hirsch[reply]

I restored some of your text. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]