[edit]

Editors - This is a stub- please help me fill it in -- I am working to flesh out the Open Source Lab (disambiguation) -please see discussion on User talk:AVRS and my talk pages. I will be working on that over the next week or so. Thanks --Stockwellnow (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

Dear Editors - This page should not be deleted as it is a new book dated 2014 so doesn't have many references to it yet other than interviews with the author and a few mentions in the literature etc. It is important, however, (or noteable) because I am using it as part of my collection of Open Source Lab (disambiguation) to show that the general concept is spreading quite rapidly. If I add in some of the other citations that are already available will that be tolerable to avoid the deletion? The reason by disamb page got slammed the first time I wrote it was too many red links - I filled them in and do not want to do it all over again. Please help me do it right - Thanks Stockwellnow (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the book isn't even out yet, then all the more reason there shouldn't be an article yet unless there is substantial advance coverage in anticipation, amounting to advance notability. See WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Even a book that's out has to meet WP:NBOOK. If it hasn't even been released, we probably can't predict now whether it will reach that standard later.
There are probably plenty of open source-related topics that merit coverage here. I see you've been creating articles about a bunch of specific labs, which I haven't reviewed but offhand I'd figure they could be suitable topics, in which case you are making valuable contributions. But a disambiguation page is to distinguish between existing pages with similar titles, on topics with the same or similar primary or alternative names. Wanting to fill out a disambiguation page isn't justification for creating an article! Each article needs to stand on its own in terms of meeting Wikipedia's guidelines.
If you want to show that the concept is spreading rapidly, the best bet is to find reliable sources that already make that observation and incorporate their findings into what you write here. This may not be what you had in mind, but be careful not to bring in pieces of information and draw your own conclusions from them in the articles you write. See WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it - I was only able to find a few other links of value. If you dont think that is enough go ahead and delete. I guess something I dont understand is I thought wikipedia was supposed to be "all human knowledge" - so shouldn't it at the very list contain stubs for all the books ever printed along with everything else? Then the noteable ones get filled in. --Stockwellnow (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's a Wikipedia page (a friendly introduction page rather than a page on policy and guidelines) that I just discovered makes this grand claim. I've posted a suggestion on its Talk page that the sentence be altered to make it consistent with actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines as reflected on the page about what Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories