Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikiwiki (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Since the Ubuntu User article opened up, there have been a switch from delete to keep, and a note from the nominator that it looks like it might be enough to be kept. The two voices to delete that are still standing might not have checked the new sources. Therefor I think it's fair to conclude that this can be closed as keep rather than no consensus Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ikiwiki

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ikiwiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Okay, I missed that and that was the only source I saw. Thank you, Lambian. Msnicki (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough independent material (like WikiMatrix) to meet the WP:V requirements for sourcing, and to prove notability, I think it should be obvious that a piece of software distributed in Debian (the largest free software project in the history of the world) is notable. Steven Walling • talk 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: obviously an outstanding wiki software.[1][2][3][4][5] More refs could be found in Google Scholar if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By inspection of the titles, it's obvious two of your new references aren't actually devoted to discussion of this software. At best, maybe they discuss it. But more likely, it's just a trivial mention, e.g., the name of this software included in a list of similar stuff. Unfortunately, since it's behind a paywall, it's hard to know which. If you'd like us to assume the unlikely is true, that these references offer significant coverage, how about adding quotes and page numbers, not for the entire articles within those books you're citing, but for the pages that actually refer to this product? Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least two are devoted to software. Other (coming from Google Scholar), seem to discuss the derivative software along with reasons of choice of ikiwiki as the base. Regardless, the most wikis I came across recently were ikiwiki-based; though this can't count for valid statistical research, it seems to be at least one of the most popular. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so now we know what constitutes a source for you. Using Google Translate, here's what that Russian document has to say about IkiWiki: "IkiWiki [14] - this involves representation developers to store and publish: Documents are stored in the "real" system Version control - defaults to Subversion, and compiled into a static HTML." And the Kleinman document is just an installation guide on a website and can't possibly be considered a reliable source. This is what you think establishes notability? Get real. If you want your position taken seriously, please don't waste our time with obviously worthless sources we have to weed through and discard. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to fail to notice that the Russian documents states ikiWiki to be one of two wiki implementations viable for building the system in paper's discussion. Doesn't that show notability? Regarding the other source: You might notice that the site doesn't feature indiscriminate collection of setup instructions for whatever exists out there. BTW, I'm not sure that You should discuss taking seriously my position. Specifically in the comment implying "grep $name | grep notable" approach to notability determining. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the entire mention of IkiWiki from that Russian document. I don't think I failed to notice a thing. It's a worthless mention. And please stop refactoring others' remarks. You've been warned twice, which is already one more than should be required. Msnicki (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it appears to me that Dmitrij's research uncovered one additional notable citation - an article in the quarterly magazine Ubuntu User. In my opinion, that brings the total number of sources establishing notability to two - this article, and the Network World article. Whether that's enough sources is a judgment call - I say no. Yaron K. (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Lambian pointed out (when I also initially missed it, above), the Networkworld article is by the author of this software, making it obviously WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was written by the software's author, but an independent source decided to publish it, so I don't think it counts as primary. I agree that it would be greater proof of notability if someone else had written the article. Yaron K. (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may make it WP:RELIABLE, i.e., likely fact-checked and accurate in what it reports, but still WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Also, from WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Msnicki (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're right. Yaron K. (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) considered it notable enough to publish. The author's involvement into ikiwiki doesn't make the publisher involved, he is indeed independent. And as long as the question of publishing the article (or not publishing) is that of publisher, we have an implication of notability by Networkworld. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No guideline or policy mentions that articles by someone non-independent are considered significant coverage if the publisher is independent. You're twisting around guidelines. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not. Both WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES explain the reasons of mass media reliability, making it crystal clear that the key factor of determining reliability is editorial oversight. And this source is third-party, as it is published in the medium the author doesn't exercise control over. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this guy wrote a book about his software and it was published by a notable publisher, do you think that the book could be used to show notability of the software? WP:NEWSORG says that it is generally reliable not always. WP:SOURCES explains verifiability which was never in doubt. SL93 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." - WP:No original research. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is interpreting this source. Still, WP:OR doesn't discuss the case of the involved author and uninvolved both editor and publisher. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing does. That's because it is still not independent because someone involved with the subject wrote the article. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELIABLE != WP:INDEPENDENT. Reliable just means that it's likely been fact-checked and accurate in what it reports. Independent means that no one associated with the topic had anything to do with the source. Sources can be reliable without being independent and independent without being reliable. But to establish notability, a source has to be both reliable and independent. Msnicki (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independence is not a boolean value (this is actually implied in WP:INDEPENDENT). The article, published in a fact-checking media is independent enough for establishing notability (along with other refs, eg. that from Ubuntu User). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independent coverage is needed according to WP:N. We can't even read Ubuntu User and with how you consider sources significant coverage, I would likely disagree. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see Your point: two page article named "ikiwiki" clearly doesn't discuss ikiwiki beyond the trivial mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the facts are checked? Just because there are editors doesn't mean that they check the facts. Do you have a reference for that assertion? SL93 (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG says we can assume the facts to be checked in media unless it turns otherwise. Actually, You may notice the fact that WP:NEWSBLOG says that even WP:SPS material published in media's blogs is assumed fact-checked. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORG says generally and this is an extreme case. The creator of the software wrote the article so we do need a reference for that. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this guy wrote a book about his software and it was published by a notable publisher, do you think that the book could be used to show notability of the software? This is the same case. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have no experience in dealing with book publishers, so I'm not sure that their editorial oversight actually involves any fact-checking. The news media actually care about the topic of their competence, so they don't publish material which damages their reputation. That's why Wikipedia relies on media. And in this regard the article in question passes the test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, Czarkoff, did you even read that article to know what it says? Or are you just listing it as WP:GOOGLEHIT? I'm suspecting the latter. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read it. It is needed to establish notability, not verifiable reference, so we need a fact of publication, not the content. Why did You link WP:GOOGLEHIT? It discusses the absolutely unrelated argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is needed to establish notability, not verifiable reference, so we need a fact of publication, not the content." That's not true at all. No guideline says that just being published shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point: it is evident that we have a source that qualifies for WP:RS. I wouldn't use it as a reference, as I don't have access to it, but we can use it as a proof of notability, as its attributes (publication medium, length, etc.) clearly indicate that the Ubuntu User considers ikiwiki notable enough for a devoted article. Still, I'll contact the publisher to ask for moving this article to the general access area. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They replied me that the article will be available in a couple of days. I'll link to it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Ubuntu User is now available. I've added a link to the ref (currently #1 in reflist). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  1. ^ Casad, Joe (2009). "Ikiwiki" (pdf). Ubuntu User (2). Linux New Media: 49–51. (subscription required)
  2. ^ Urban, Josef; Alama, Jesse; Rudnicki, Piotr; Geuvers, Herman (2010). "A Wiki for Mizar: Motivation, Considerations, and Initial Prototype". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6167: 455–469. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14128-7_38. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Alama, Jesse; Brink, Kasper; Mamane, Lionel; Urban, Josef (2011). "Large Formal Wikis: Issues and Solutions". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6824: 133–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22673-1_10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Salnikova, E.E.; Salnikov, S.A.; Kuznetsov, S.D. (2009). "Управление контентом в крупных научно-технологических Internet-библиотеках" [Content Management in Large Technological Internet Libraries] (PDF). Труды RCDL (in Russian): 193–199.
  5. ^ Kleinman, Sam (2010-03-23). "Create a Wiki with Ikiwiki on Fedora 12". Linode. Retrieved 2012-01-03.
  6. ^ Seigo, Aaron J. (2011-05-10). "another git wiki: ikiwiki". personal blog. Retrieved 2012-01-10.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ikiwiki_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144315101"