 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 no consensus. Once comments made by obvious single-purpose accounts have been excluded, there is broad consensus that the subject of the article does not meet the various specific notability guidelines, but no real consensus on what particular specific notability guidelines actually apply. In addition, the question of whether GNG applies was raised but not properly discussed. Given the long history of issues that this article has had, I will be referring it to the BLP noticeboard so a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes can check whether it is still in adherence to Wikipedia's BLP policies, specifically with regards to COATRACK issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Kemp[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
AfDs for this article:
- Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:TheFallenCrowd tried to AFD this but instead overwrote a previous nomination. Their rationale is below.
The subject meets none of the notability criteria as demanded by Wikipedia
1. The subject was a minor unelected official in a minor political party which obtained less than 1.9% of the vote.
2. According to the WP:POLITICIAN notablity guidelines, the subject must meet the following criteria:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
3. The subject has clearly not achieved any of these criteria, and thus lacks notability on Wikipedia.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- delete per nom. Mostly because they had too minor a role, not just because the party was minor. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia criteria. Subject was a minor, insignificant supporter of a small, failed political Party. Bloomingnicely (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Historystudent845 (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Yaabbly (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria. Subject was a minor, insignificant sdupporter of what is now a minor, insignificant political party Tachwyr (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - subject not notable as per wiki criteria. Subject was a supporter of an almost defunct and totally irrelevent minor political party Galtonion (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: The prior five !votes are all from single-edit editors. Collect (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Marginally notable for one book -- but current article is COATRACKish at best - so no objection to a deletion if someone makes a clean start on a real BLP here in the future either. Collect (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - According to Wikipedia notability policy "Subjects notable for only one event" WP:BLP1E
"Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."
Thus by Wikipedia's own guidelines, the subject does not qualify for notability based on one self-published book. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- His role in the South African murder trial would seem to be WP:BLP1E. But if he also has notability for the self-published book and/or his role in a minor political party (and I am not sure he does), then that would be WP:BLP2E (or even WP:BLP3E), which would not support deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- His role in the Hani trial was minor, and, according to news reports and Wikipedia's own article of the event, insignificant when compared to the main players. I agree with Rlendog that this is clearly WP:BLP1E and not justifiable for a standalone article.
- As discussed below, a self-published book and his minor role in a tiny political party is NOT notable, by Wiki's own standards. To reiterate the point: Wikipedia does NOT have an article about the author of every self-published and obscure book; and Wikipedia does NOT have an article about every tiny party's junior website editor. In fact, Wikipedia does not even have articles about the large parties' senior website editors, so there is absolutely no justification for one about an electorally insignificant party.
- All of the facts therefore point overwhelmingly in favor of a deletion, by all established Wiki notability standards.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Subject not notable as per wiki criteria Rtaitm (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - He fails WP:POLITICIAN, but not WP:GNG, which takes priority. He clearly does have significant coverage in reliable sources, which makes him notable. (Also, WP:BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, i.e. people who don't seek out media attention.) DoctorKubla (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. Subject had sporadic coverage as a minor official of a tiny, electorally unsuccessful party.
- Even that was distorted: Wikipedia does NOT contain an article on the website editor of Britain's UKIP party (which is far bigger than the BNP), the English Democrats, the National Front, or even of the large parties such as the Conservative Party or the Labour Party.
- It is absurd to have an obvious COATRACK article on someone who edited a tiny party's website and to claim that is "notable."
- WP:BLP1E is highly relevant here, particularly the part which says that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." There is no good rationale for this article to exist.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, he isn't notable as a politician, and his claim to fame isn't being the BNP's website editor. His coverage largely comes from his involvement in a murder trial and the books he's written. If he meets WP:GNG, which I think he does, it doesn't matter how electorally successful the BNP are. And BLP1E isn't relevant because it "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals". DoctorKubla (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Hani trial is a perfect example of the Wikipedia Wikipedia notability policy "Subjects notable for only one event" WP:BLP1E which specifically states that there should NOT be entries "only in the context of a single event."
- The Hani trial took place in 1993, that is, two decades ago. The subject was merely one of over 100 witnesses in the trial, yet Wikipedia does not have an article on every single witness, many of whom were far more relevant to that trial (such as the eye-witnesses to the assassination, the people who supplied the firearm used and so on).
- It is a complete non-starter to claim that the subject is notable for being a relatively minor witness in a trial two decades ago.
- The Wiki guidelines on single event occurrences state clearly that where there is already an article on the event (which there is), there should NOT be an article on the individual. The only exception to this rule, as per the Wiki guidelines, will be if the individual played a very important role. The guidelines give the example of Princip as the assassin of ArchDuke Ferdinand. There is no suggestion that the subject of this article is even in the same league as Princip.
- As to the claim that the subject is notable "for the books he has written": this is an equally absurd claim. The subject has written a handful of self-published books on Lulu. According to Lulu, there are "millions" of self-published titles on that website. Must Wikipedia now have an entry for every single self-published book on Lulu? That is ridiculous.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have looked up the Wiki guidelines on "Low Profile" and "High Profile" individuals, to see if WP:BLP1E is applicable in this case. Looking at the definitions contained at WP:LOWPROFILE, there is no doubt that the subject qualifies, several times over.
- "Media attention
- High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well.
- Low-profile: May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself.
- Promotional activities
- High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.
- Low-profile: Has not participated in such activities. May have engaged in some major media/press activity or public speaking as a simple, non-self-promotional spokesperson employee for a company/organization. Might engage in local boosterism, e.g. about a municipal issue.
- Appearances and performances
- High-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage. May have produced publications (books, DVDs, etc.) or events that at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention.
- Low-profile: Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization, or a local sporting, fundraising or activism event. May have fulfilled non-self-promotional functions based on experience or special knowledge, such as being an expert witness in a legal case. May have authored non-self-promotional publications, such as books or refereed journal articles on scientific, technical, historical, etc., topics.
- Behavior pattern and activity level
- High-profile: As of the writing (or review/editing) of the article (or as of the article subject's death) is (or was) engaged in high-profile activity, as described above, with or without a lifelong history of such activities. Or was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now (or at the end was) attempting to be low-profile. Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.
- Low-profile: Has always avoided high-profile activity. Or may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then. Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events."
- By all of these criteria, the subject qualifies as "low profile" so the guidelines of WP:BLP1E are clearly applicable.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Subject was a minor witness in a trial a long time ago. A junior webmaster for a party so small it has never won a seat in parliament and his book is self published. Hardly good enough criteria to be in Wikipedia NeilMcA (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Although a scary guy, he meets WP:GNG as a journalist and writer. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- WRONG. The Wiki guidelines for notability as a journalist and writer are contained at WP:AUTHOR and state the following:
- "Creative professionals
- Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
- The subject of this article has done NONE of those. Hence the claim that he is notable under these guidelines is completely incorrect. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. I am referring to WP:GNG, which overrides you WP:AUTHOR in importance. And for sure, this scary guy meets If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. I agree that guys like him should be locked up and the key thrown away, but even a creep can be notable. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of this article has done NONE of those. Hence the claim that he is notable under these guidelines is completely incorrect. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Subject not notable as per wiki criteria. He received very sporadic media coverage as a non-self-promotional website designer for a small party. After that role he demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity. He had a minor role in a major event 20 years ago as one of 100 witnesses, many others being far more important to the trial but without Wikipedia entries. Like thousands of other self-publishers of unknown Lulu books, he does not deserve the publicity of an entry. Schreiberstuhl (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. There is a strong odor of socks here. Note that of the accounts voting for deletion above, six were newly created to vote for this AFD. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am sure people will be persuaded by the incontrovertible evidence of non-notability, and not socks.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Having read the definitions of notability for authors and journalists WP:AUTHOR, politicians WP:POLITICIAN, and for low-profile, single events, and individuals WP:BLP1E, there can be no doubt that the article has no justification for existence on Wikipedia, per the definitions of notability as defined by Wikipedia.JamesHilt62 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Kemp is an irrelevant and obscure individual who has apparently spent most of his life hiding behind a computer. What SEEMS to be known of him is usually propaganda concocted and disseminated by himself in order to stroke his own fragile ego. He is nothing but a pamphlet-peddler, lacking in substance as well as note-worthiness. Wiki should note waste its space with the likes of Kemp. DavidAllan1 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. These sock/meatpuppets are coming up with increasingly irrelevant arguments. Let me restate my case in response to TheFallenCrowd and JamesHilt62.
- Arthur Kemp does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Arthur Kemp does not meet WP:AUTHOR. And WP:BLP1E does not apply. The only question remaining is whether Arthur Kemp meets the general notability guideline, and I haven't yet seen the "delete" side even address this issue, except to say that BLP1E overrules it.
- Just to be clear: If Arthur Kemp were notable only for the murder trial, BLP1E would apply. If he were notable only for joining the British National Party, BLP1E might apply. If he were notable only for being a journalist and author, BLP1E would not apply (because journalists and authors are not low-profile). The fact is, he's notable for all of these things combined, which cannot be defined as 'one event'. Granted, there's some degree of interconnection - his books are mainly notable for having been written by a former BNP member, and his BNP membership was only noteworthy because he was linked to a murder trial - but allow me to quote from WP:WI1E (only an essay, but it makes sense to me): "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion." DoctorKubla (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment And noting that I was the one who mentioned the problem of a WP:False concensus above early on:
- Is "being a member of the BNP" a sign in any way of notability? Nope. Strike that part of the argument ab initio.
- Is writing a book a sign of notability? It can be - the issue here is whether the book is notable, and, of so, should the BLP be in the article thereon, rather than being an argument for Kemp being notable as an author. I suggest the book is marginally notable, but that is not a particularly strong argument for an admin to hang onto.
- Is being a witness in a murder trial "notable"? Not as a general rule to be sure - else we could have millions of articles on such.
- Thus I can see merit either way - but can not state as an absolute that non-notable attributes add to the person's notability either. Collect (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Collect is part way correct:
1. There is no notability for being a member of the BNP. Kemp was not an elected official, ever stood for public office, or held any position of national importance. As stated above, Wikipedia does NOT have articles on junior web editors of any other party. As a result, there is zero notability under WP:POLITICIAN.
2. Writing a book is only notable under Wiki guidelines as spelled out in WP:AUTHOR which are worth repeating once again, for DoctorKubla's sake:
""Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Nothing Kemp has written falls into any of those categories, and it is far fetched to even claim that he qualifies for notability under that category.
3. Being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp was one of many witnesses in the 1993 Hani trial (about which there is already a Wiki article) and was in reality a minor witness. Other witnesses--such as the eyewitness to the assassination, the people who stole and provided the firearm used, the people who provided the silencer and many others--do not have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.
There is, therefore, zero justification for this article: Kemp fails all notability tests in every single category. We should be guided by the principles of Wikipedia, not personal likes or dislikes. Kemp is simply not notable by established Wikipedia standards and the article should obviously be deleted.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know this is futile, but I'm going to try explaining this one last time. Kemp does not fail all notability tests. He fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN, and probably lots of other secondary guidelines. But that doesn't matter if he passes WP:GNG, which calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you want to argue that he has no notability, that is the guideline you have to address. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Based on Wikipedia guidelines, this article fails notability criteria. Kemp has for long not been active within any of the groups or organisations whose association may previously have provided a basis for notability. I suspect the only reason this obscure article exists is for a desire on the part of original author to subvert Wikipedia into a platform from which to conduct a personal vendetta. Please delete. Boerboel1 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As help for the deciding moderator[edit]
Single Purpose, Single Edit Accounts: Galtonion (talk · contribs), Tachwyr (talk · contribs), Yaabbly (talk · contribs), DavidAllan1 (talk · contribs), Boerboel1 (talk · contribs). Historystudent845 (talk · contribs), Bloomingnicely (talk · contribs)
Single Purpose Accounts: Rtaitm (talk · contribs)
Accounts only active on articles about right wing (ex-)South Africans: Schreiberstuhl (talk · contribs), TheFallenCrowd (talk · contribs),.
To me, it looks like an orchestrated effort to remove an article of a South-African, fallen foul in his original country. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Objection: a review of my contributions shows a wide range of contributions which cover far more than South Africa. This entry is clearly an attempt to divert attention away from the facts of the matter, which are that the subject of this article fails all Wiki notability standards. It is obvious that "Night of the Big Wind" is on a personal vendetta, as evidenced by that user's repeated personal attacks and insults (see above). TheFallenCrowd (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Summary[edit]
This article’s opening paragraph reads as follows:
“Arthur Benjamin Kemp (born September 14, 1962) is a prominent British white separatist, writer, speaker, activist and political figure who has been the Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the British National Party and was responsible for the content of that party's website. He was born in Southern Rhodesia and worked as a journalist in South Africa before moving to the United Kingdom. His most noted works are March of the Titans: a History of the White Race and Victory or Violence: the Story of the AWB.”
This opening paragraph provides the core of the reason why this article should be deleted.
A. The article claims that the subject is a “political figure” who has been in the BNP and was responsible for that party’s website. Ergo, this article claims that the subject is notable for being a politician.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability for politicians, WP:POLITICIAN, a politician must fulfill the following requirements for notability:
1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
Kemp has fulfilled NONE of these criteria, and, as users above have readily agreed, fails all notability tests for the political figure category.
B. The article then claims that the subject is a “journalist” and “author” who has written books.
According to the Wikipedia guide to notability as a journalist and writer WP:AUTHOR, a person must fulfil the following criteria for notability:
“Creative professionals
“Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
“The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
“The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
“The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
“The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Once again, it is obvious that the subject of this article has not fulfilled a single one of these criteria.
As a result, there are no grounds for notability in Wikipedia at all.
One user suggested that Kemp’s minor role in the Chris Hani Trial made him notable.
Wikipedia guidelines state that being a witness in a trial is only notable, according to WP:SINGLEEVENT
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category."
Kemp’s appearance as a witness in that trial was minor, and one of many. Far more important witnesses testified, as outlined above, and therefore there are no grounds for notability here either, especially given the fact that there already is an article on the Hani trial.
In conclusion then, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible: this article fails every single one of Wikipedia’s notability tests and should be deleted forthwith.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Consensus is that this annual competition is notable enough for its own article. However, since the content of the articles is currently limited mostly to scores and results, it may be appropriate to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page (to merge the men's singles and men's doubles articles to the main article). -Scottywong| prattle _ 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
2004 Estoril Open[edit]
- 2004 Estoril Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, Notwithstanding the WikiProject article recommendations, this sports event fails the WP:NOT policy as it is for an event without any demonstrated "enduring notability". Not sourced and only sources I can find are of the routine type every professorial sports event gets.
Also nominating
- 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and,
- 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
for the same reasons that there are no sources demonstrating enduring notability. Mtking (edits) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Keep. There's millions of pages about ATP World Tour events, including every Estoril Open edition since its inception, what makes this one so different than 2004 Milan Indoor, 2004 Adidas International, or any other 2004 ATP event? If there's something wrong with this, at least be consistent and propose them for deletion too. Hell, what makes 2004 so different than 2003 or 2005? Secretaria (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Mtking (edits) 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Every sporting event on the scale of an ATP or WTA World Tour gets sufficient media coverage (even if it may be a bit tricky to find afterwards), gets dozens of notable players to participate, and has a lasting notability which is resulted in the statistics of those players (for instance, it is noted in the article that this was a tournament Gagliardi won her first title - although in doubles). This is the rationale behind creating and keeping these articles. We may want to change this policy and practices (though I personally do not see any reason why), but this clearly goes beyond the AfD consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Routine coverage of the event in sporting press is not the issue, the issue is WP:NOT says that WP only covers events of enduring notability, WP:PERSISTENCE goes onto outline "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" and the only coverage I can find is at the time of the event. Mtking (edits) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not exactly sure what you mean by coverage. For instance, this independent source, published last month, mentions that the 2004 winner was Chela. This is not comprehensive coverage, I agree, but, first, I was too lazy to find smth more comprehensive, which very well may exist, second, finding comprehensive coverage of 1904 Olympics - undoubtedly a notable event - may be also pretty tricky 9though obviously easier), third, I am sure in the end of 2004 there have been end-of-the-year reports, and for instance I am sure Jon Wertheim in his column must have mentioned that Chela had xxx tour titles in 2004, including Estoril Open, where he won over yyy. Just finding this requires going through his 2004 columns.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Routine coverage of the event in sporting press is not the issue, the issue is WP:NOT says that WP only covers events of enduring notability, WP:PERSISTENCE goes onto outline "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" and the only coverage I can find is at the time of the event. Mtking (edits) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- COMMENT This same nominator and a few other like-minded editors have been systematically going through lists of events in another sport (simply check Mtking user contrib for last 1000+ entries) to plug everything which might not match "enduring notability" into AfDs. This has caused many months of excruciating turmoil which caused many regular contributors to leave, some more to be blocked indefinitely for resisting wholesale AfD's, and it is currently still unresolved. It's probably best for wiki if the broader sports community and interested admins helped clarify the rules at hand, to prevent the whole category from plunging into the same fate. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think Ymblanter has made a good point as far as I understand it. I don't understand the Village Pump but the problem of what to keep and what to get rid of and where (if anywhere) to keep what's deleted needs a lot of outside input from the big WP community. Too many people have disagreed for too long and not found a resolution at MMA already. I don't think spreading the unhappiness to tennis is a good idea now. The big WP community may need to dialog about policy. In the meantime MEDCAB may be able to help resolve the topic already under discussion at MMANOT. Factseducado (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Factseducado (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- In fact I can't remember a single MMA event I have nominated closing as keep, they are either filibustered no consensus, deletes or redirects (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (2nd nomination)). Ymblanter might also like to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f for some background. Mtking (edits) 08:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- This largely verifies my comments above. These nominations can be quite effective, and those who resist their broad application are taken through the ringer by proponents, which results in a rapid outflux of subject contributors over many months. I support Ymblanter's quite reasonable claim that this whole affair should be surfaced to a higher court to be resolved clearly and resolutely instead of quibbled over event by event and sport by sport. Agent00f (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)- Weak keep, I have no interest in commenting on notability and would probably follow consensus there. However, the WP:POINTiness of this nomination, as shown by comments above, is a keep argument. In general deletion decisions are very ill-made by choosing one article at random out of a large set without distinguishing it clearly from the set. JJB 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as established at endless debates on the same issue before, there's no way to prevent arbitrary AfD's from being filed unless there's a greater ruling. So unless we're on our way to creating such rules, this AfD is not actually functionally different than any other which checks for validity of these types of articles. Agent00f (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Mtking obviously doesnt like tennis either. Portillo (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the participants in this discussion who have been discussing MMANOT should try MEDCAB to settle that issue before moving into new similar areas like this. This entire area of policy should be reviewed by larger WP community so that all kinds of sports and nonsports articles can be judged using a similar policy. I've withdrawn my keep nomination because Ymblanter pointed out elsewhere that the tennis issue should be discussed separately from the MMANOT issue even though I agree the nomination of this article is pointy. Factseducado (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Close: Nomination appears to be prove a point and not improve the article. Giving 2 days between opening a question about notability in addition to a discussion at the project talk page to rush straight to AfD is disingenuous and just plain disruptive. No comment on the appropriateness of this, but I have to wonder if WP:BEFORE had been checked. Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong. AfD is not for improving an article, it is for proving a point: namely that something is notable. And if that cannot be done, then an article is deleted. In addition, your complaint about "rushing" to AfD is misguided: an AfD lasts a whole week, providing sufficient time for other editors to find and add good sources, if they exist. And when that happens, most people who !voted "delete" will change their !votes. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: the following discussions seem to be relevant for this AfD discussion, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#2004 Estoril Open, 2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles & WP:NOT--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: simply a tabulation of scores, and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Complete lack of any evidence of anything even vaguely resembling WP:SECONDARY coverage to make this an encyclopaedia article rather than a scorecard. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Can't say that I see the "pointyness" of this nom, Mtking is just going through sports events having an article that do not meet the guidelines. This one clearly has no enduring notability, as argued. And as Hrafn points out, the current article is just a tabulation of scores. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of every sports event ever held. Fails WP:NOT. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - yes this was talked about at Tennis Project. This IS a notable event per tennis project guidelines. Mtking was told this and put it up for nomination anyways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- It may meet the wikiprojects notability essay (not an adopted guideline), however it appears that this essay is not in line with the wider community accepted policy of what WP is not. Mtking (edits) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it does meet Wikiproject Tennis notability Guidelines which tends to follow Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Obviously each sport is a bit different which is why baseball project adopted a naming convention based on official baseball cards. You won't find that under general wikipedia guidelines either. Once you get sport specific general guidelines won't work, so Tennis Project adopted what would be and wouldn't be notable so editors would be able to know right off the bat which tournaments qualify and which don't. Wiki guidelines are rules of thumb to keep in mind but they are very generalized and usually tweaked a bit to fit each projects' goals. It is consensus and common sense in Tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you look again at the projects notability page you will see the projects notability page is indeed an essay (in the Gray banner at the top of the Notability section) and not a WP guideline. Secondly if you reed the section on Sports Events notability on the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page you will see it says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." this article lacks any well-sourced prose and is merely a list of stats. Mtking (edits) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the issue is indeed that this article 'lacks any well-sourced prose' then why not add a tag to this effect on the page and give the editors a chance to improve it?. Would it not be normal to start with such a constructive option instead of directly chosing the destructive option of AfD? I'm honestly baffled by this approach. --Wolbo (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think if you look again at the projects notability page you will see the projects notability page is indeed an essay (in the Gray banner at the top of the Notability section) and not a WP guideline. Secondly if you reed the section on Sports Events notability on the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page you will see it says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." this article lacks any well-sourced prose and is merely a list of stats. Mtking (edits) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it does meet Wikiproject Tennis notability Guidelines which tends to follow Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Obviously each sport is a bit different which is why baseball project adopted a naming convention based on official baseball cards. You won't find that under general wikipedia guidelines either. Once you get sport specific general guidelines won't work, so Tennis Project adopted what would be and wouldn't be notable so editors would be able to know right off the bat which tournaments qualify and which don't. Wiki guidelines are rules of thumb to keep in mind but they are very generalized and usually tweaked a bit to fit each projects' goals. It is consensus and common sense in Tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- It may meet the wikiprojects notability essay (not an adopted guideline), however it appears that this essay is not in line with the wider community accepted policy of what WP is not. Mtking (edits) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per above rationales and it passes tennis notablity tournament standards for inclusion.HotHat (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that HotHat (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Keep- part of the 2004 ATP Tour, the premier professional tennis circuit in the world, clearly notable. Jevansen (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jevansen (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Keep, nominator seems to be applying some subjective personal standard as to what is and isn't enduringly notable. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, I am going by WP:PERSISTENCE where it says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" Mtking (edits) 04:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Important tournament. Perhaps inline references can be added. Gap9551 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gap9551 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Keep - Per WP:SPORTSEVENT a subject is notable if it is "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league." The ATP and WTA are top leagues and the Estoril Open is a significant tournament as an ATP 250 event. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, a tennis player is notable if they win even a challenger event and an ATP 250 event is much higher in significance. TheLou75 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Except that the Estoril Open is not the "final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of" the ATP or WTA -- so it does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Tennis, if there was some tennis player who participated in the main draw of the 2004 Estoril Open but no other tennis tournaments before or after, that single lifetime participation would make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is a different issue -- WP:NOTINHERITED. And I would hope that the player's biography would contain more than just his scorecard. Biographies are likely to be productive of more encyclopaedic content than a single competition. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Tennis, if there was some tennis player who participated in the main draw of the 2004 Estoril Open but no other tennis tournaments before or after, that single lifetime participation would make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – per all above arguments. Also, it should be noted that the Notability article clearly states (under the "Notability is not temporary" section) that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This certainly applies for this tournament article. Thus, this rebuts the opening claim that this article has not "demonstrated enduring notability," since enduring does not equate to ongoing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bloom6132 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
- Keep Tournament belongs to the highest class of men's tennis tournaments; the professional ATP Tour. It's a week long event consisting of 40+ tennis matches with a significant prize money ($500,000) and with worldwide coverage (incl. TV). It features top-ranking world class players including in this specific case the best clay court tennis player in history (Nadal). It is an entirely notable sports event, also according to the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and, by extension, of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
COMMENT Per Ymblanter's suggestion above of taking the broader issue to Village Pump, a quite relevant conversation has started there over issues relevant to this AfD. Participants can voice their questions/concerns about wiki policy there. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mtking (edits) 03:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- While true that a note was left, it is also true that this argument was ongoing at Project Tennis and that I was a participant where we told you it was a good article. You put it up for AfD anyway. I check a couple time per week at Tennis Article Alerts and saw this already. I cannot speak for the others you listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise, I'd have found out about this discussion one way or another. I check the sports AFDs regularly. A simple note informing me of this discussion hasn't swayed my vote, which would have been cast regardless. This seems to be a desperate attempt to rescue a failing AFD. If this is the way you want to do it ... best of luck. Jevansen (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- While true that a note was left, it is also true that this argument was ongoing at Project Tennis and that I was a participant where we told you it was a good article. You put it up for AfD anyway. I check a couple time per week at Tennis Article Alerts and saw this already. I cannot speak for the others you listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. All ATP and WTA Tour tournaments are notable and get significant media coverage. They have a lot of matches during a week and draws are the best way to show them. The results are the main thing afterwards and they are in the official sources so editors often don't bother to add independant sources but they would be easy to find. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All sports events get significant media coverage, but that coverage is just routine, what is needed is coverage as per WP:PERSISTENCE and that does not appear to exist and therefore the article fails WP:NOT.Mtking (edits) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are enough reasons given why this article is notable per the notability guidelines / advice / commonsense but even if we just follow WP:PERSISTENCE you conveniently overlook the word 'likely' in that guideline which is a rather important word and there for a reason and it at the very least shows that your statement '...and therefore the article fails' is in its absoluteness unfounded and incorrect.--Wolbo (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All sports events get significant media coverage, but that coverage is just routine, what is needed is coverage as per WP:PERSISTENCE and that does not appear to exist and therefore the article fails WP:NOT.Mtking (edits) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I also got a note from Wolbo, but I would not say this is canvassing, since he just notified a few of the more active editors in project Tennis. Nominator had first questioned these tournament articles on the project Talk, and I advised him to put it in AfD if he disagreed with the standing project's guidance for tournament articles: [17].
- While I think we have too much tennis coverage on wp (and project Tennis already deleted over 200 tournament articles from the lower "Futures" circuit earlier this year), it would be going too far to delete the events from the ATP and WTA main tour. Reducing tennis tournament coverage (if that's what the broader community wants) would naturally start with the events in the much smaller (and significantly less notable) ATP challenger tour events, for which we create 100s or articles every year: Category:2011 ATP Challenger Tour.
- As for this AfD. The Estoril Open is an international event, attracting several top players every year, and like all other ATP or WTA main tour events it gets broadcast on tv in a lot of countries in different continents. It also gets daily coverage in news media (and not only in Portugal), so there are plenty of sources to write an article. If nominator's arguments are accepted, then we will have 1000s of articles to delete in all kind of sports. And not only in sports, what are we going to do with articles like Idols (South Africa season 6) or Big Brother 3 (UK)? This kind of yearly "events" have little lasting notability outside their respective countries, while the Estoril Open gets international participation and coverage. It would be double standards to keep national "Idols (your country) season x" type articles, while deleting international tennis tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC
- I agree, we may have had too many non-notable articles which people have wasted time in creating, instead of filling in the gaps of missing tournament articles for the 250, 500, 1000 and Grand Slam events (and their predecessors) and the equivalents on the WTA Tour. I appealed ages ago to WP:Tennis for help in creating these articles, which I was doing at quite a rate. I also created most of the current templates for the ATP and WTA tours with redlinks to missing articles still being far too common. There is no grounds for deletion here. 03md 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
merge survey[edit]
Merge Comment - one thing I do notice from time to time is that in smaller tournaments like this, even though they are absolutely notable and should be kept, the disciplines could easily all fit on one page. The main page is really too short as are the individual singles and doubles articles. I test merged them and then reverted it back Right Here for an example of what it could look like. When the ladies singles and doubles get added it seems like it would still be just fine where it would wind up at 35–40k in size. It just seems to me that it would be better to have one nice sized article rather than several small ones. This won't work with larger tournaments on the tour because of bigger draws and extra prose, but it could work with many. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, this is something that has been proposed on the project Tennis before, but didn't seem to get much traction. For all but the four grand slams and the Master tournaments we should merge the tournament articles into one. It would be even better if the draws are put into collapsible boxes, and a bit more prose gets added, for example about the tournament final (for which there is always properly sourced material to find). I am all for such merges, even if it pushes the article to 110 or 120 kB.MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sandstein 13:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
NuttX RTOS[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- NuttX RTOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable OS. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
| Meatpuppetry |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NuttX is in active use in several embedded hardware projects. A Google search for NuttX RTOS produces 246,000 results. https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=nuttx+rtos — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicromintUSA (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — MicromintUSA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The Wikipedia articles listed below are devoted to RTOS that are much less "notable" than NuttX. The NuttX RTOS article should not be deleted!!! BeRTOS CapROS ChorusOS Contiki Deos DioneOS DNIX GEC DSPnano RTOS DSOS ERIKA Enterprise EROS HeartOS Helium INTEGRITY IntervalZero RTX ITRON MenuetOS MQX MERT Nano-RK OSE PikeOS PowerTV Prex pSOS (real-time operating system) QP REX OS RTXC Quadros SHaRK SINTRAN III Talon DSP RTOS T-Kernel THEOS TRON Project TUD:OS Unison RTOS Xenomai µnOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.33.9 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — 69.89.33.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
- Delete Doesn't have enough coverage for notability. It gets three paragraphs in a Linux Journal story[34] and there's some coverage on download sites, but I'm not sure if they should be considered independent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
| meatpuppetry |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article should clearly not be removed as the RTOS is currently gaining a lot of momentum and was only released in 2007. It is in active use e.g. at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in several research projects. Its features are quite differentiating to other RTOS, making it in particular important to give the public an overview of the differences, since it is not one out of many. LorenzMeier (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — LorenzMeier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
acassis (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Please do not delete the article. The editor actually does not understand the nature of the RTOS. He may have actually seen it at work in any electronic apparatus he owns and not even realize that it is there. Some companies use it, and even encourage people to add or remove features from it. How better to know what the OS is by visiting these pages, before visiting the location where the source code lives, which can be supplied in references, which are verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorwho8 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Doctorwho8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
- Comment If you are aware of any academic papers describing projects using NuttX, or if you know any press reports on NuttX (including reports in the electronics trade press and technology news websites), please post links. Wikipedia relies on published information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Colapeninsula, the article references and external links point to projects using NuttX. Also, several of our embedded projects at Micromint use NuttX. We have been in the embedded systems market since 1979. I would like to ask you two questions:
1. What is your background with embedded systems that allows you to properly evaluate the "notability" of this project?
2. Are you imposing the same "notability" criteria to the 38 Wikipedia RTOS articles listed above (BeRTOS CapROS ChorusOS ...)? NuttX has much more functionality and has much more active development than any of those. MicromintUSA (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. To answer MicromintUSA's questions above, although they weren't directed at me:
- (1): The entire point of an article on Wikipedia is that it is accessible and understandable to readers that have no prior knowledge of the subject. This also means that someone that has no prior knowledge of the article's subject can read the content, assess the references, and easily see for themselves that the article is notable. If a reader cannot do this, then it is not the fault of the reader for not being able to "properly evaluate" the article; the fault is with the article for failing to demonstrate its notability.
- (2): WP:OTHERSTUFF. The notability of another article is a discussion for another article, it has no bearing on this article. Lack of notability on another article does not negate this article's lack of notability.
- The Linux Journal article is the only thing in the article that helps establish any kind of notability, and articles require multiple reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article's subject, three paragraphs in Linux Journal by itself does not give the article sufficient notability. - SudoGhost 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - SudoGhost, I respectfully disagree with your response to (1). You are mixing the role of a reader and an editor. In a traditional publication a reader is usually not an expert on the topic he/she is reading about. Yet an editor should be. When editors cover fields in which they have little or no knowledge, the quality and relevance of publications can do down dramatically. An example would be having someone that has never played baseball, that has never been in a baseball game and that has no interest in baseball become the editor for the baseball section of a publication. Regarding your response to (2), applying different criteria is certainly arbitrary and possibly unfair. If editors applied different criteria to 38 (THIRTY EIGHT) other articles in the RTOS topic, something is very broken in the editing process. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia mixes the role of reader and editor, not I. This is not a "traditional publication", and if the article cannot demonstrate the notability of its subject then this shows that the article is not notable, not that the reader just doesn't understand it. Your statement is based on editing an article an editor has no prior knowledge of, and that's not what I'm talking about. Anyone should be able to look at an article and the sources supporting it and determine if it is notable or not. The difference is that notability is not about what an editor knows, but what reliable sources show. The reliable sources in the article do not show notability. As for (2), no "different criteria" is being applied. If you have an issue with the notability of the other articles, discuss them at the talk pages of the different articles, but this discussion is about NuttX RTOS and its notability. Other articles lacking notability does not merit keeping an article that has no notability. - SudoGhost 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, you placed a COI tag on the article that states A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. What is your basis for this? If you are referring to me, I am not a NuttX developer nor do I have a direct connection to the NuttX project. If you are referring to my using the software, that is definitively not a close connection. If you have no evidence and made the tag based on pure speculation, please remove the tag. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You were not the editor that concerned me, this discussion board shows what I'm referring to, and it looks like all of the non-IP "please do not delete" comments come from usernames that are also in use on that discussion board. - SudoGhost 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- That discussion board is the NuttX forum. Users post questions about the RTOS there. Posting on the forum does not imply a close connection with the the subject or its creator. If there is other evidence, please state it. Otherwise the COI should be removed immediately. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You were not the editor that concerned me, this discussion board shows what I'm referring to, and it looks like all of the non-IP "please do not delete" comments come from usernames that are also in use on that discussion board. - SudoGhost 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, you placed a COI tag on the article that states A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. What is your basis for this? If you are referring to me, I am not a NuttX developer nor do I have a direct connection to the NuttX project. If you are referring to my using the software, that is definitively not a close connection. If you have no evidence and made the tag based on pure speculation, please remove the tag. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia mixes the role of reader and editor, not I. This is not a "traditional publication", and if the article cannot demonstrate the notability of its subject then this shows that the article is not notable, not that the reader just doesn't understand it. Your statement is based on editing an article an editor has no prior knowledge of, and that's not what I'm talking about. Anyone should be able to look at an article and the sources supporting it and determine if it is notable or not. The difference is that notability is not about what an editor knows, but what reliable sources show. The reliable sources in the article do not show notability. As for (2), no "different criteria" is being applied. If you have an issue with the notability of the other articles, discuss them at the talk pages of the different articles, but this discussion is about NuttX RTOS and its notability. Other articles lacking notability does not merit keeping an article that has no notability. - SudoGhost 20:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please Don't Delete - Someone with basic experience with embedded systems should be able to see that NuttX is one of the top open source RTOS alternatives. My direct experience in this field covers several decades. The article states multiple references and external links to projects using NuttX in production applications. Censoring NuttX out of Wikipedia would be a great disservice to this field and would prevent developers working with microcontroller applications from access to valuable information. It is just not right to have people that have no interest or knowledge in this field do this censoring. MicromintUSA (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
| Meatpuppetry |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment - Just to clarify something said here, this discussion is not exactly about "collecting opinions" about NuttX RTOS, but rather how it does or does not meet the notability guidelines. As it says above the editing window, valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Wikipedia has specific guidelines such as WP:N and WP:GNG for determining the notability of each and every article, and if you want the article kept then the best way to do that is to look for references that can help satisfy WP:GNG at the minimum; giving your opinion of how great the software is isn't really going to help. - SudoGhost 03:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, you need to start being more specific, I'm reading your links WP:N and WP:GNG and I believe this article meets the points. The General Notability Guideline says: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have added reliable sources that are independent to the subject (if you disagree please mention which you consider not reliable). We have added links like the main NuttX site that is "the piece of work itself", so you have the reliable source there for a start. Second, the features and other technical titles in the Article comes from "the piece of work itself" (NuttX site), by either documentation that is written by "the creator of the work", Gregory Nutt, or the features of the source code itself, again "the piece of work itself". So that is one reliable source you can take. You need to point out what is written that does not come from a reliable source.
- I think the mere point of this discussion is the title "Notability requires verifiable evidence" from the WP:GNG page: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Hence this article is being challenged, but we already worked on some of the points mentioned there and in WP:RS improving the article. This is a long-term project since 2007 and currently active, and it is very clear that the article is not "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" and I think we gathered evidence of 'notability-indicating sources'. Please read: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." My previous comment was not about how great is NuttX at all, but an indication for the editors to detect that possibility of notability-indicating sources. I was also trying to put the editors into context ("Context makes a difference") indicating how this is an original work that has been gathering momentum for years now, and that the very specific 'reliable sources' you are looking right now are just not possible (i.e. a book) at this moment, meaning not that this article is not notable. Jpcarballo (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I stated above specifically why it did not meet the criteria, and that only one reference showed any notability, however it's not fair to say the others do not show notability without saying why, so I'll go through each reference. As of this revision (1) Conveys some notability, but articles require multiple reliable sources. (2) is a blog, does not help establish notability. (3) is a portal for a youtube video which does not establish notability (4) is a wiki, which like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:SPS (5) appears to be a host/mirror for NuttX, not independent of the article's subject (6) is also a wiki (7) uses the software; is not independent (8) WP:SPS (9) Does not convey any notability; I'd actually suggest it shows otherwise, only three people total said they had ever used it (10)(11)(12) all WP:SPS and appear to be non-independent of the article's subject (13) is user-submitted content, not a reliable source (14) is WP:SPS, and is a primary source.
- I think the mere point of this discussion is the title "Notability requires verifiable evidence" from the WP:GNG page: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Hence this article is being challenged, but we already worked on some of the points mentioned there and in WP:RS improving the article. This is a long-term project since 2007 and currently active, and it is very clear that the article is not "promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" and I think we gathered evidence of 'notability-indicating sources'. Please read: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." My previous comment was not about how great is NuttX at all, but an indication for the editors to detect that possibility of notability-indicating sources. I was also trying to put the editors into context ("Context makes a difference") indicating how this is an original work that has been gathering momentum for years now, and that the very specific 'reliable sources' you are looking right now are just not possible (i.e. a book) at this moment, meaning not that this article is not notable. Jpcarballo (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of all 14 references, only one demonstrates any measure of notability from reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject. A single reliable source does not establish the notability required to satisfy the requirement of the general notability guideline. - SudoGhost 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I won't loose my time on this anymore. Thanks all for your effort. Jpcarballo (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is truly a waste of time. These Wikipedia censors definitively have no clue of the subject. Are Wikipedia censors required to pass a "notability" test? What are the credentials and "notability" of Ridernyc and SudoGhost that gives them the power to censor an RTOS article? It is likely they won't disclose their credentials or submit to the same scrutiny that they are applying to this article. Besides the Linux Journal, the article references include multiple documented projects that serve as irrefutable evidence of the use of NuttX in practical applications. There is no question about the veracity of any information in the article or its relevancy to the RTOS field. It is likely these censors have never achieved anything of the stature of NuttX and have no clue of what it entails. Unlike judges or censors in the real world, these Wikipedia censors hide behind a virtual alias that hides their credentials and does not allow vetting. Their censorship gives them the power to attack achievers using the alias as a mask, something they can't do in the real world. Rather than promoting the exchange of information they are serving as deterrents. The end result of their baseless censorship is that embedded developers will not be able to get that information through Wikipedia. In my 30 years in the computer industry I have never seen such a retrograde attitude as shown by these Wikipedia censors. The argument that people censoring the articles don't need any knowledge of the field is ludicrous and shows blatant disregard for common sense. History shows that giving power to people that don't have the knowledge is dangerous. 69.89.45.1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles, regardless of content, require multiple third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in order to deal with the subject with due weight and to properly ensure that it is written in a neutral manner. It is not "censorship" to point out that this article is lacking these kinds of sources, because if the article had more third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject it would then negate what I said about it lacking these. If this is your definition of censorship then you are more fortunate than you'll ever know. However, instead of improving the article or providing the sources the article needs, you instead resort to ad hominem attacks against editors that point out that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. In attacking those that disagree with you instead of addressing the actual notability concerns that were discussed, you have shown the merits of your comment. - SudoGhost 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is truly a waste of time. These Wikipedia censors definitively have no clue of the subject. Are Wikipedia censors required to pass a "notability" test? What are the credentials and "notability" of Ridernyc and SudoGhost that gives them the power to censor an RTOS article? It is likely they won't disclose their credentials or submit to the same scrutiny that they are applying to this article. Besides the Linux Journal, the article references include multiple documented projects that serve as irrefutable evidence of the use of NuttX in practical applications. There is no question about the veracity of any information in the article or its relevancy to the RTOS field. It is likely these censors have never achieved anything of the stature of NuttX and have no clue of what it entails. Unlike judges or censors in the real world, these Wikipedia censors hide behind a virtual alias that hides their credentials and does not allow vetting. Their censorship gives them the power to attack achievers using the alias as a mask, something they can't do in the real world. Rather than promoting the exchange of information they are serving as deterrents. The end result of their baseless censorship is that embedded developers will not be able to get that information through Wikipedia. In my 30 years in the computer industry I have never seen such a retrograde attitude as shown by these Wikipedia censors. The argument that people censoring the articles don't need any knowledge of the field is ludicrous and shows blatant disregard for common sense. History shows that giving power to people that don't have the knowledge is dangerous. 69.89.45.1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I won't loose my time on this anymore. Thanks all for your effort. Jpcarballo (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of all 14 references, only one demonstrates any measure of notability from reliable, third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject. A single reliable source does not establish the notability required to satisfy the requirement of the general notability guideline. - SudoGhost 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please Don't Delete Nuttx is a bit like linux(features wise and driver model wise) but for microcontrollers, it even has a shell(the nsh shell). I use it because I'm porting it to OsmocomBB compatibles phones in order to make theses phones usable without a computer. Altough there are some computer science related articles that should be deleted or improved,likes the one on foobar's android distributions where people takes wikipedia as their project wiki, here it's not the case, so I propose to keep the article, I really don't understand why many good free software project wikipedia articles are flagged for deletions when they should not. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any references that would help with the notability? It's not a matter of not understanding what NuttX is, or it not being "good free software", the issue is that it fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, the NuttX article does meet WP:GNG. Using the definition of "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" there is "significant coverage" in references (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). All projects listed would not work without NuttX. The veracity of none of the sources is in question so they meet the definition of "reliable" as "sources with editorial integrity". Sources are secondary, "independent of the subject" and "not affiliated with the subject or its creator". As per WP:GNG "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia". The fact you only accept the Linux Journal as valid and disregard most of the references is your opinion and that of a few others that have no significant knowledge of the field covered by the article. The vast majority of people with RTOS experience clearly disagree with you and the few others that concur with you. We assess NuttX as notable and the references as reliable and independent. As you well know, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Given your arguments, it appears impossible you will change your vote. Yet the assessment of readers with in depth knowledge of this topic needs to carry more weight. Deleting this article would be wrong. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming for a moment that I've never heard of this newfangled "embedded" RTOS, an editor's knowledge of the topic has no bearing on an article's ability to demonstrate notability. If an editor cannot look at an article and the references provided and see that it is notable, then the failure is the article's, not the editor's. I've explained why the other references do not convey notability, notability is established by reliable third-party sources that are independent of the article's subject. Not reliable sources that aren't independent, and not independent sources that aren't reliable. It has to be both independent and reliable, not one of the two. Of all the references in the article, the Linux Journal reference is the only one that is both independent and reliable, and I explained in detail why each and every other reference fails to contribute to the notability of the subject.
- If by "in-depth knowledge" you mean the only editors that have made any comment towards keeping the article were canvassed from the NuttX discussion board, then no it does not and should not carry more weight that editors that were asked to come here specifically to !vote to keep the article, who predisposed towards the article's subject think it should be kept without actually establishing or showing notability. These editors, yourself included, did not judge the article on its merits and assess the notability without a predisposed opinion on whether to keep or delete the article based on the references provided, you asked them to come here and !vote keep. Notability has to be demonstrated, not known beforehand. I have no doubt that people that use NuttX think it's notable, but it has to be demonstrated with sources that are both independent and reliable, and this article has failed to do that. - SudoGhost 20:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You accused me on your talk page of having a close connection with NuttX because our controllers run NuttX. That is absolutely ridiculous and representative of your flawed logic. Our controllers use ARM processors and also run Linux. That does not imply we have a close connection to Linux nor do we have a vested interest in the Linux Foundation. The same goes with all other operating systems that work with ARM processors and run on our controllers. According to the ARM article in Wikipedia in 2011 there were over 15 billion ARM processors in devices all over the world so there are many many operating systems running on them that would also run on our controllers. You crossed the line by making baseless accusations. I demand that you immediately stop these false accusations made without any evidence whatsoever. MicromintUSA (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- and I have responded on my talk page. - SudoGhost 22:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You responded with yet another flawed argument that could even be regarded as an attempt to thwart free expression. Yearly I post in over a dozen forums. I have a right to an opinion on any topic whatsoever. That does not imply a close connection to a topic. You have absolutely no authority to block my right to free speech. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, where can we see your credentials and a list of articles you have edited in Wikipedia? We have the right to do the same vetting on you than you are making on us. Hiding behind an alias to make flawed arguments and false accusations goes against basic fairness principles. I already posted my credentials on a previous response. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's no point copying the same thing on my talk page and here, anyone is welcome to see my talk page's contents. My contributions are equally accessible by anyone. However, short of addressing the deletion rationale editors have expressed, accusing editors of "hiding" behind a pseudonym and other equally irrelevant things isn't going to convince anyone to keep the article. An article stands on its own merits, not those of editors. It is up to the article to demonstrate its own notability, if only those that have "credentials" think it's notable without being able to demonstrate this, that's a fairly resounding indication that the subject is not notable. - SudoGhost 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You do not have a right, only a privilege, to free speech on Wikipedia, per WP:FREESPEECH.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't understand the argument. I have a right to comment on any topic on any discussion forum without having someone accuse me of a close connection to a topic. I have the right to use any software whatsoever without having someone accuse me of a close connection with its author. Commenting on a topic or using software does not imply a close connection. Using gas on your car does not imply you have a close connection to the oil industry. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- No you don't. You do not have a right to comment, and you do not have a right to not receive a valid counter-argument. This does imply a close connection. We frown when you canvass other editors to try to support your position on this site. All that matters is that to the Wikipedia community, it does imply a connection of some sort, and therefore, our concerns are valid.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have as much right to comment as you do. There is absolutely no question of the veracity of the information listed in the article. It is not right when people without any background in the field censor information such that it is not accessible to interested parties via Wikipedia. It is even worse when the censors hide behind an alias and can't be submitted to the same vetting process we are being submitted to.
- SudoGhost is neutral on this subject, and I realize there are many RTOS's. All editors must submit themselves to this kind of process before they comment; even I must be careful when I comment on discussions like this for Linux or Windows articles. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, yet it cannot include everything, so we have certain standards you need to meet. We find that you did not meet those standards, plain and simple.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have as much right to comment as you do. There is absolutely no question of the veracity of the information listed in the article. It is not right when people without any background in the field censor information such that it is not accessible to interested parties via Wikipedia. It is even worse when the censors hide behind an alias and can't be submitted to the same vetting process we are being submitted to.
- No you don't. You do not have a right to comment, and you do not have a right to not receive a valid counter-argument. This does imply a close connection. We frown when you canvass other editors to try to support your position on this site. All that matters is that to the Wikipedia community, it does imply a connection of some sort, and therefore, our concerns are valid.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- If we're going with this "gas in the car" analogy, then use it correctly. You aren't "putting gas in your car", you're selling a car that can use a special kind of gas, and naming that brand of gas specifically as a selling point for your car. Because this special gas has no article, you created one, because why would it help sell your product if nobody knows what the special gas even is? When it was brought up that the gas may not be notable, you got in touch with the people that made the gas, asking them to vouch for its notability. That's not just "putting gas in your car". That is why you have the appearance of a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yet another flawed argument. This hypothetical gas (NuttX RTOS) works on any popular hypothetical engine (microcontroller) so it is not a competitive advantage for any hypothetical car (controller) vendor. It is amazing how misguided Wikipedia censors can be. This article was written in the interest of providing information on this outstanding RTOS alternative. We make absolutely zero revenue out of NuttX and it does not give us a competitive advantage nor does it help us in any sales effort. There are many other free open source RTOS that support ARM microcontrollers and developers can use on our ARM-based controllers. This includes several listed in Wikipedia articles that evidently didn't go through the vetting that your are imposing in this case. Your hypothetical conflict of interest is just that, hypothetical. MicromintUSA (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't understand the argument. I have a right to comment on any topic on any discussion forum without having someone accuse me of a close connection to a topic. I have the right to use any software whatsoever without having someone accuse me of a close connection with its author. Commenting on a topic or using software does not imply a close connection. Using gas on your car does not imply you have a close connection to the oil industry. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, where can we see your credentials and a list of articles you have edited in Wikipedia? We have the right to do the same vetting on you than you are making on us. Hiding behind an alias to make flawed arguments and false accusations goes against basic fairness principles. I already posted my credentials on a previous response. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You responded with yet another flawed argument that could even be regarded as an attempt to thwart free expression. Yearly I post in over a dozen forums. I have a right to an opinion on any topic whatsoever. That does not imply a close connection to a topic. You have absolutely no authority to block my right to free speech. MicromintUSA (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- and I have responded on my talk page. - SudoGhost 22:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- You accused me on your talk page of having a close connection with NuttX because our controllers run NuttX. That is absolutely ridiculous and representative of your flawed logic. Our controllers use ARM processors and also run Linux. That does not imply we have a close connection to Linux nor do we have a vested interest in the Linux Foundation. The same goes with all other operating systems that work with ARM processors and run on our controllers. According to the ARM article in Wikipedia in 2011 there were over 15 billion ARM processors in devices all over the world so there are many many operating systems running on them that would also run on our controllers. You crossed the line by making baseless accusations. I demand that you immediately stop these false accusations made without any evidence whatsoever. MicromintUSA (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- SudoGhost, the NuttX article does meet WP:GNG. Using the definition of "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" there is "significant coverage" in references (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). All projects listed would not work without NuttX. The veracity of none of the sources is in question so they meet the definition of "reliable" as "sources with editorial integrity". Sources are secondary, "independent of the subject" and "not affiliated with the subject or its creator". As per WP:GNG "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia". The fact you only accept the Linux Journal as valid and disregard most of the references is your opinion and that of a few others that have no significant knowledge of the field covered by the article. The vast majority of people with RTOS experience clearly disagree with you and the few others that concur with you. We assess NuttX as notable and the references as reliable and independent. As you well know, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Given your arguments, it appears impossible you will change your vote. Yet the assessment of readers with in depth knowledge of this topic needs to carry more weight. Deleting this article would be wrong. MicromintUSA (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any references that would help with the notability? It's not a matter of not understanding what NuttX is, or it not being "good free software", the issue is that it fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no flaw here, you are specifically using this article's subject as a selling point for your products, it doesn't matter what else it runs on, you are using it as a marketing tool, and providing it with your hardware, therefore it is potentially beneficial for your company if this article existed, and therein lies the potential for a conflict of interest. Nobody said that this is certainly why you created the article, but these facts create the appearance of a conflict of interest, the key word there is appearance. To refer to me as a "censor" for pointing this out is mindbogglingly inaccurate. If you want your article kept, address the issues of notability; continuing to personally attack editors that disagree with you will not suddenly cause anyone to see the truth and take back their assessment that the article is not notable. If anything, attacking others instead of addressing the content of the article is just going to end with you being blocked from editing, and because you are editing under your company's name, throwing personal attacks around reflects very poorly on your company, especially since Wikipedia articles (including this AfD) are shown through search engines such as Google. - SudoGhost 03:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let me see recapitulate. There is no question of the veracity of the article or its relevance to embedded system developers, yet its content is edited by people that acknowledge having little or no background in the field and that also threat with suppressing it totally. Multiple references of active use of NuttX in practical embedded applications are totally disregarded. A report is made of close to 40 other Wikipedia articles in the same field that are much less "notable", but nothing is done about it. Votes and testimony from fellow NuttX users is suppressed and they are demeaningly referred to as puppets. I am reprimanded for requesting their participation. After 30+ years in the computer industry with a spotless technical and business record, my integrity is questioned by people using an alias that decline to state their credentials. Even though most people outside of Wikipedia would call this censorship, I am threatened with being blocked for referring to it as such. Well, I no longer live in a communist regime and will not kneel against oppression. If you feel I have violated your policies, please take whatever action you deem appropriate. Also, you are well aware that no additional references meeting your criteria will be viable in the 7 day discussion period. Please stop our misery and just pull the trigger. JAlvarez (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the article has multiple reliable sources that show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, it would be kept. It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, and so does not belong on Wikipedia. This is "censorship"? If this is your definition of "censorship", then you are an extremely fortunate individual to not know what censorship truly is. If I wrote a package and asked to add it to a repository, and the repository maintainers saw that it did not meet their criteria and did not add it to their repository, or removed a package that no longer meets their criteria, is this censorship? No, and it is nothing short of absurd to claim otherwise. You said that "There is no question of... its relevance to embedded system developers", but this is the point you seem to be missing, this is not "Embeddedpedia"; that NuttX is relevant to NuttX developers means absolutely nothing in terms of its relevance to anyone else, and notability is the tool that is used to determine this. This article does not have that notability, and therefore does not meet the criteria required for a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact you have little or no knowledge of the RTOS field, and evidently have no interest in it, does not mean the topic is not important to thousands of embedded system developers. Wikipedia of course is not "Embeddedpedia" (your term, not mine). Yet embedded systems is an important topic in Wikipedia. A simple search of wikipedia.org produces over ten thousand article references. It is not one of the top topics but certainly has an important following and should not be disregarded or demeaned. I still contend that most people outside of Wikipedia would look at all the points raised here (including the suppression of valid feedback, demeaning other users as puppets, disregarding valid references, allowing dozens of less notable articles, selectively repressing participation requests, making false allegations of conflict of interest, etc.) and classify them as censorship. Many of those actions would not be allowed in reputable real world publications, where people are subject to scrutiny and can't hide behind an alias. JAlvarez (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You do not know my knowledge, and at any rate it does not matter. Any article, on any subject, must be able to demonstrate notability, so that anyone can see it is notable. This article does not do this. By making wildly misconstrued claims of "censorship" instead of addressing the issues raised, you're showing that this article is in fact not notable. We can already see what would be allowed in real world publications, since this article is lacking in the notability given by such publications. If you have something to address concerning the article, then do so, but calling editors "censors" and accusing editors of "hiding" needs to stop. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Address the notability of the article, don't attack others in an attempt to minimize their comments. - SudoGhost 23:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The fact you have little or no knowledge of the RTOS field, and evidently have no interest in it, does not mean the topic is not important to thousands of embedded system developers. Wikipedia of course is not "Embeddedpedia" (your term, not mine). Yet embedded systems is an important topic in Wikipedia. A simple search of wikipedia.org produces over ten thousand article references. It is not one of the top topics but certainly has an important following and should not be disregarded or demeaned. I still contend that most people outside of Wikipedia would look at all the points raised here (including the suppression of valid feedback, demeaning other users as puppets, disregarding valid references, allowing dozens of less notable articles, selectively repressing participation requests, making false allegations of conflict of interest, etc.) and classify them as censorship. Many of those actions would not be allowed in reputable real world publications, where people are subject to scrutiny and can't hide behind an alias. JAlvarez (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the article has multiple reliable sources that show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, it would be kept. It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, and so does not belong on Wikipedia. This is "censorship"? If this is your definition of "censorship", then you are an extremely fortunate individual to not know what censorship truly is. If I wrote a package and asked to add it to a repository, and the repository maintainers saw that it did not meet their criteria and did not add it to their repository, or removed a package that no longer meets their criteria, is this censorship? No, and it is nothing short of absurd to claim otherwise. You said that "There is no question of... its relevance to embedded system developers", but this is the point you seem to be missing, this is not "Embeddedpedia"; that NuttX is relevant to NuttX developers means absolutely nothing in terms of its relevance to anyone else, and notability is the tool that is used to determine this. This article does not have that notability, and therefore does not meet the criteria required for a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let me see recapitulate. There is no question of the veracity of the article or its relevance to embedded system developers, yet its content is edited by people that acknowledge having little or no background in the field and that also threat with suppressing it totally. Multiple references of active use of NuttX in practical embedded applications are totally disregarded. A report is made of close to 40 other Wikipedia articles in the same field that are much less "notable", but nothing is done about it. Votes and testimony from fellow NuttX users is suppressed and they are demeaningly referred to as puppets. I am reprimanded for requesting their participation. After 30+ years in the computer industry with a spotless technical and business record, my integrity is questioned by people using an alias that decline to state their credentials. Even though most people outside of Wikipedia would call this censorship, I am threatened with being blocked for referring to it as such. Well, I no longer live in a communist regime and will not kneel against oppression. If you feel I have violated your policies, please take whatever action you deem appropriate. Also, you are well aware that no additional references meeting your criteria will be viable in the 7 day discussion period. Please stop our misery and just pull the trigger. JAlvarez (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
| Meatpuppetry |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete: (Note that I am ignoring the blatant meatpuppetry that's occuring above) - I do not at all care about the merits of this OS, and Wikipedia does not either when considering its notability. A Google search leads very few third-party reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Jasper Deng. Notability must be corroborated by many reliable sources, not few. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 03:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - First of all, I'm sorry if editors interpreted my questioning as a personal attack on them. Discussions between people with strong convictions can get somewhat heated at times. My opinions tend to be strong in areas related to the field I have enjoyed working in during most of my career. In my talk page I agreed to limit the scope of my questioning to the subject matter in respect to Wikipedia rules and in consideration to highly committed editors, such as SudoGhost. Although it is evident we disagree in several issues, I do recognize SudoGhost's commitment to maintaining high quality of information at Wikipedia. His arguments are carefully prepared with detailed references and thoughtful use of the language. JAlvarez (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Questions - Now going back to article issues, the consensus among editors seems to be that the Linux Journal reference is reliable but that references from applications using NuttX are not. How many additional reliable references would be required to satisfy the requirement of notability? How much time we have to find them until a final decision is made on the AfD? Regarding the CoI concern, would removing the reference to Micromint controllers cure that? My intent there was to show that NuttX has been deployed production applications with commercially available controllers, reducing concerns about it being unstable or too fragile for commercial applications. There is absolutely no interest to direct Wikipedia readers to Micromint. As far as it being closely tied to our our ARM controllers, that is certainly not the case. The Wikipedia list includes 64 RTOS that support ARM microcontrollers. Most could be used with our controllers so there is no real advantage. We do like the NuttX functionality and believe it is one of the best RTOS for embedded work, but work with several others. JAlvarez (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- On COI, that doesn't matter - it's the point of view of the article. I'd probably require something like 5 reliable sources, depending on their quality and reputability. If your intent was to show its amount of uses, that does not show notability unless people note the OS for that; you have until exactly one week after the discussion's beginning (until 03:38 24 May 2012) to do this, and even so, you may not be able to convince the !voters in time. But, thanks for acknowleding that you do have a conflict of interest and that you are trying to keep it under control.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also a note to add, yes there are many other articles on RTOS's on Wikipedia. I spent part of the day yesterday looking at many of them, and as far as I'm concerned the vast majority of the ones that I looked at also do not belong on Wikipedia. Ridernyc (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ridernyc. Cleaning up the RTOS list would definitively improve the quality of the Wikipedia coverage in this field. I can't talk for the other microcontroller targets, but for the ARM there are certainly too many. I counted 64 ARM RTOS entries earlier this week. Probably 20 or 25% of those cover over 95% of all installations. JAlvarez (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that if a clean up is done it should be done properly. In the OS (or RTOS) section there are indeed a number of different ones listed (whether too many or too few is another subject) and a large percentage (easily visible by checking through some random ones) unquestionably do not fulful notability requirements (in present state) according to the Wikipedia definitions - this is valid for various less well known ones as well as for some "well known" ones. The present clean up is restricted to a very few chosen from the list and not necessarily the 'worst' ones in terms of content and justifiability of being present in Wikipedia. (Hyperthetical) If Windows 95 were listed without any references to notability would Windows 95 not be notable and so the article deleted? Presumably the article should indeed be deleted or, more constructive, improved to fulfil the shortcoming. Possibly the following should be done here - list all (rather than just a small random selection) that are questionable. This would be much more productive and positive: it would not give the impression that some one is "picking on" a couple out of the list (this is probably one of the reasons that make so many rather hot under the collar since they know very well that they have put in effort (whether meeting the requirements at the time or not) and still see a lot of other articles in their same area of interest that have been added without any effort (there are a number of 5..10 line entries with a single link to their web server, that's it). If all were questioned together it would show that this is a general issue and not a random attack. This would in turn make it clear that all are in the same boat and all should be attempting to meet the requirements or should be deleted until they can do so - no hard feelings and every entry handled fairly and objectively. Goal clearly to improve quality and everyone given a fair chance to make these improvements where possible. mjbcswitzerland (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.193.177 (talk)
- Thanks, Ridernyc. Cleaning up the RTOS list would definitively improve the quality of the Wikipedia coverage in this field. I can't talk for the other microcontroller targets, but for the ARM there are certainly too many. I counted 64 ARM RTOS entries earlier this week. Probably 20 or 25% of those cover over 95% of all installations. JAlvarez (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Added some references to the author behind NuttX (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493558769), as per Jasper Deng's recommendation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasper_Deng) to write about who develops it. I will be adding more information about the OS architecture in the next days, as right now I am very busy. I ask you to please review the "Current Development" section to check my changes and bring back any comments, and if this edit added notability. Thank you. Jpcarballo (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jpcarballo. That is useful information. You may consider revising some references that appear twice (19/20, 22/23, 30/31). I understand Lorenz Meier and Alan Carvalho de Assis did thesis projects using NuttX in Switzerland and Brazil. I was looking for links to their thesis documents but could not find them. If you have links to those and they note the use of NuttX please add those too. JAlvarez (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just added a reference to Alan Carvalho de Assis dissertation, which references NuttX as the underlying real-time operating system in the solution. Jpcarballo (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jpcarballo. That is useful information. You may consider revising some references that appear twice (19/20, 22/23, 30/31). I understand Lorenz Meier and Alan Carvalho de Assis did thesis projects using NuttX in Switzerland and Brazil. I was looking for links to their thesis documents but could not find them. If you have links to those and they note the use of NuttX please add those too. JAlvarez (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notability Anaylisis Hi, I noticed that a lot of the body of the Article was removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493751329) leaving in the Article pretty much only what I have written, I guess that makes me a main contributor. This is a good thing, because all of these Editing sessions have been very about the contributors getting to know Wikipedia's policies and rules. I was one that got surprised that an article about NuttX was being deleted, and signed up at Wikipedia and came here to see in what could I help, please note the inexperience. The time is almost gone to demonstrate the article's notability, and I don't have that much of time to dedicate as much to this article as I would like, so I think it is time for my final notability analysis for this AfD, so that Wikipedia editors can determine if it pass or not.
These are the references that I think make this article notable, as of this revision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493777587):
1) NuttX Archive at SourceForge: According to WP:IRS, this link is the 'piece of work itself', as it points to the NuttX source code archives.
2) Non-Linux FOSS at Linux Journal: As per the discussion above, this reference to the LinuxJournal has been determined (as the only) notable source by several editors. No need to discuss on this one more.
4) NuttShell documentation: I see this as also 'part of the work itself', software comes with documentation, this is part of NuttX documentation.
5) Master dissertation by Alan Carvalho de Assis: Formal academic reference. The work is not available on the web, but I have read it as Alan sent it to me (too bad I don't understand much Portuguese). Note that according to WP:GNG sources are not required to be in English.
8) NuttX in Isotel NetClamps sensor networks: This is one I picked up from 6) to 11), to note that even you could argue that they are not reliable, they are 'independent secondary sources' WP:ORG. If they are 'trivial' or 'incidental', well that is subject to discussion. I believe such debate inevitably would fall in the technical ground: using a real-time operating system is something specialized, finding a reference to a secondary source that has used NuttX to support its main products does not sound trivial in my opinion.
17) Introduction to NuttX: This one relates to 18), 19) and 20). It is an academic reference that supports NuttX exposure in the Embedded Technology Conference 2011, a national event held in Costa Rica. Newspapers brings evidence of this event and NuttX exposure.
These are my arguments, please note that I have taken a lot of my personal time through this week, and that I do this in good faith. I would like to ask to focus this discussion on Notability, as this article could have a lot more technical merit in the future as it evolves (with all the training that I have been through with you), since it is impossible to describe an OS in one week.
I also want to appeal to your consideration of this idea from WP:N: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Regarding this I have expressed myself before in this talk about this notability-indicating sources (mostly graduation projects based on NuttX that I am aware of), but I acknowledge that (from WP:N) "...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.". I think I have not only asserted, but brought through this week two specific sources: Alan Carvalho de Assis dissertation and references to NuttX in the Embedded Technology Conference at the University of Costa Rica, 2011.
About the CoI issue, I believe it doesn't fit anymore, since the contributor in conflict has expressed his interested in leaving himself out of the editing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JAlvarez#NuttX_RTOS_concerns), plus his contributions were mostly erased ((http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NuttX_RTOS&oldid=493777587)). Thank you for your time. Jpcarballo (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Lacks independent, reliable, sources.
If it's so great, someone outside of it's biggest fans must have written about it somewhere.—Al E.(talk) 17:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- "If it's so great, someone outside of it's biggest fans must have written about it somewhere." That is an unnecessary comment, and probably is what is so uncomfortable about this AfD. I'm going to try not to take this personal as I am one of the persons who wrote about NuttX here. It is disappointing to feel that Wikipedia editors are biased or emotional when they make these decisions. It would be polite if you are specific about the sources written in the article, one by one, and tell why they are not notable, at least the ones I specified in my notability analysis. SudoGhost did that above, he has proven to be a very professional editor in this difficult conversation. Jpcarballo (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The article has been reworked since I commented, so I wanted to comment again in light of the current version. Unfortunately I've looked at the references that were added, and I don't see any that are both independent of the subject and considered a reliable source, so right now I'd have to stick with my original opinion that the article is not sufficiently notable to be an article right now. That's not to say that when NuttX gains more recognition that an article cannot be created, but from the sources given and from what I found online, I don't think it currently meets any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Section Break[edit]
Why is there now an RFC tacked to the top of this AFD? Ridernyc (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't as I've removed it. The AfD is a site-wide notice it doesn't need another. There may be a lag before the pages that report RfCs catch up.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I had a question and thought of using the RfC functionality, it was not appropriate as JohnBlackburne was saying to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpcarballo#RfC_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNuttX_RTOS). Ridernyc, could you please answer to my last notability analysis? Jpcarballo (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Article deleted as copyright violation. created by editor who is now blocked for copyvios. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Uruguay–Philippines relations[edit]
- Uruguay–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. article is lifted from this http://www.embafil.com.ar/Uruguay.html the fact there about 10 Filipinos living in uruguay says it all. those wanting to keep must provide actual sources demonstrating a notable relationshop, not "bilateral articles are notable" "keep can be improved". LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks notability. WP:EVENTS requires that an event have some real impact to be notable. I see no political or cultural impact of the relationship between these two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJ Wine (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per reliable secondary and tertiary sources that have covered this topic. The topic is meeting WP:GNG:
- "National Day of Uruguay Thursday". Manilla Bulletin. August 25, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
((cite web)): External link in|publisher=|publisher=(help) - "Secretary Del Rosario Reactivates Phl Ties with Uruguay and Paraguay". Republic of the Philippines, Department of Foreign Affairs. August 27, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
((cite web)): External link in|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 09:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- "National Day of Uruguay Thursday". Manilla Bulletin. August 25, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
- the first article is mainly a description of Uruguay and hardly about actual bilateral relations. The 2nd article is a Primary source. We need third party sources, independent of foreign ministry websites. LibStar (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Apart from the specfics which have already been detailed, they are both members of the Cairns Group and have a common culture and history as part of the Spanish empire. Warden (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- being part of the Cairns group or even the Spanish empire does not prove actual interactions between the 2 countries. are there state visits? trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - we need actual sources describing relations between Uruguay and the Philippines, not a Wikipedia editor giving us his point of view that because the two countries happen to be part of the same club, and because they were both controlled by the same colonial power, their relations are therefore notable. Unsurprisingly for two countries that are not global powers and are 11,000 miles apart, such sources are nowhere to be found. And as LibStar has noted, neither a newspaper article noting a national holiday nor an official record of a meeting between two foreign ministers come anywhere near establishing the notability of this "topic" that no one had heard of until someone had the bright idea of inventing it yesterday. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As atavism of a tiresome experiment in "if it can be named, it should have its own article". There are bound to be a couple of newspaper articles naming the two countries together, but to suggest that this awful collage makes for encyclopedic sourcing is to mock the purposes of wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Is the above !vote based upon an actual search for sources, or only those presented thus far in this discussion? If the latter is the case, please consider doing research to locate additional sources, rather than basing a topic's merits only upon the sources presented thus far. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Yes, it is "based upon an actual search for sources". Not that it would matter, because: 2) Per WP:BURDEN, I am not required to do that job - you are. 3) Your entire argument is spurious: to show evidence that there are no pandas in Somalia, one does not need to introduce pandas to Somalia. Pandas could live in Somalia; they just don't. Dahn (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying your stance regarding the topic's notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Northamerica1000, let me just say that while searching never hurt anyone, even a basic knowledge of international affairs (which I would hope you have, as otherwise your competence to comment here might be called into question) can tell one one a priori that the number of countries with which Uruguay and the Philippines have article-worthy diplomatic relations is awfully small. For Uruguay, the list looks something like this: Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, United Kingdom, US. For the Philippines: China, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, US. (Note the omission of Spain from both lists: the colonial period itself, as well as things like the Argentine War of Independence or the Philippine Revolution, are more a matter of internal or military history than of relations between two sovereign states. In Uruguay's case, the colonial power has largely stayed out since the 1820s, while in the Philippines, its second colonial power, the US, has had a vastly greater impact since 1946 than the first.)
- Searching can help in borderline cases: Uruguay-Chile? Philippines-Australia? But in a pairing so laughable as this, it's bound to turn up only meaningless trivia, as you have amply demonstrated. The set of article-worthy diplomatic pairings between small or medium powers on opposite sides of the globe is vanishingly small, and when they do exist (Israel–South Africa relations comes to mind), they're pretty well known, and their notability is immediately and obviously apparent after searching, which is definitely not the case here.
- With both these countries, it's easy to spot the utterly fictitious pairings we already have: Australia–Uruguay relations, Canada–Uruguay relations, Greece–Uruguay relations, Israel–Uruguay relations, Lebanon–Uruguay relations, Switzerland–Uruguay relations; Philippines–Argentina relations, Bolivia–Philippines relations, Philippines–Canada relations, Chile–Philippines relations, Mexico–Philippines relations, Paraguay–Philippines relations, Pakistan–Philippines relations, Denmark–Philippines relations, Ireland–Philippines relations, Philippines–Romania relations. Some of the more egregious ones have survived AfDs similar to this one by being stuffed with trivia — Switzerland–Uruguay relations comes to mind as an exemplar of what not to do on this project. They should be deleted en masse, but starting with this one is not bad either. - Biruitorul Talk 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I appreciate your honest personal opinions. However, I disagree with the assessment of the sources I provided as "meaningless trivia". One is a news article from the Manilla Bulletin, a reliable source, and one is information from the government of the Republic of the Philippines. The Manilla Bulletin source discusses the National Day of Uruguay that occurs in the Philippines, which has connotations of relations between the two countries, because the Philippines has a national day of recognition for Uruguay. The article also mentions Uruguay's Consulate in the Philippines, headed by Consul Alfred V. Ty. While this is the weaker source of the two, it has a slight amount of significance relative to the topic. The source from the government of the Republic of the Philippines contains extensive information about the Philippines reactivating ties with Uruguay and Paraguay, by establishing mechanisms for regular bilateral consultations. The use of the word "regular" in this context refers to an increase in bilateral consultations between the two countries. The article describes matters regarding bilateral trade between the Philippines and Uruguay and each country's imports and exports to the other country. I don't consider this as "meaningless trivia", I consider it to be factual, significant information that is directly related to the topic. The government of the Republic of the Philippines certainly doesn't consider the content as meaningless or trivial.
Northamerica1000(talk) 08:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - More information and statistical data from the Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines in Buenos Aires, which "is responsible for promoting and protecting the interests of the Philippines and welfare of Filipino citizens in Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay."
-
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 08:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- how about some third party sources like maybe 4 or 5 major newspapers ant nor foreign ministry websites? I fail to see significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid dismissing my comments as "honest personal opinions" isn't going to be quite so easy. The fact is that the set of Uruguay's article-worthy bilateral relations is essentially limited to its near neighbors in South America, Britain (the main foreign player until the 1930s) and the US (since that time). You don't have to take my word for it: I encourage you to email or call Professor Mark Jones, Uruguay expert. Explain to him what's going on here; seek his opinion; maybe even have him comment here. You'll see the expert brings back the same "personal opinion".
- Now for the specifics. A newspaper article informing readers of the occasion of a foreign country's national holiday — with or without congratulations to "Consul Alfred V. Ty" — does not in any way constitute evidence of notable bilateral relations. The only reason you're even bringing this up is because it's almost all you could find on this "relationship", and this proves it's trivia: for a relationship with actual significance, we readily find an abundance of sources dealing with the actual relationship, not informational pieces that have zero bearing on the topic. For example, would we ever consider citing this article at Dominican Republic–United States relations? No, because for one, like the article you brought up, it's not relevant, and for another because the countries have a relationship that not only is significant, but has been amply documented in a variety of scholarly sources. In other words, when we have such sources, we don't need to stoop to trivia; when we don't, we either have to, or preferably to delete.
- As for this: it's a government press release. Yes, the relationship does exist; no, it's not significant if no one outside official channels has ever mentioned it. Likewise with this. When all you have to say is that the Philippines imported .448 tons of cotton from Uruguay in 2010, it's a good sign the game is up and the carcass should be left to rot. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as noted above, plenty of good sources show notability, unlike, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivia–Philippines relations. Even a passing knowledge of the Philippines would allow one to question the claim that only 10 Filippinos reside in Uraguay; the Filippino diaspora is everywhere, hiding in plain sight, as I have noted in other AfDs. Uruguay is a seaport country where thousands of Irish Uraguyans live and the population is incredibly ethnically diverse, like the Philippines, but unlike Bolivia. More to come.... Bearian (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the respective size of minority groups matters for these bilateral relations articles; their nationals are likely to need consular help, emigrate and immigrate, and the two nations are likely to have multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties. For example, Uruguay and The Commonwealth of the Philippines were allies at the end of World War II. There is a huge category of articles about the Filipino diaspora, and those People have tended to settle in port cities and countries with easy access by airplane, such as Uruguay (but not Bolivia). I can't do it right now/today, but I will search for additional sources. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please do let us know how that search goes: not having presented any substantive evidence of notability — a burden that rests on those wishing to keep the article — what you have said thus far can readily be dismissed as speculation. We need actual sources on the topic of "Uruguay–Philippines relations", not airy musings on how a posited diaspora's purported need for visa stamps allegedly constitutes evidence of a notable bilateral relationship. And by the way, should the diaspora actually exist and be worthy of our attention because it's documented in reliable sources, Filipino Uruguayan is where that would be covered.
- "Plenty of good sources"? An irrelevant newspaper article and a couple of government press releases? Our notability standards aren't that low.
- I'm afraid your claim about World War II can't be taken very seriously. For one, the Philippines did not gain independence until 10 months after the Japanese surrender, and its foreign policy until that time was in American hands. For another, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't say "hmm, these two countries were on the same side in a war, so that must be evidence of notable bilateral relations!" We call that original research or synthesis. No, we have to find a source discussing relations between Uruguay and the Philippines, one explicitly mentioning this as a noteworthy feature of their relationship. Naturally, no such source exists, so the connection is meaningless beyond what is already noted at Allies of World War II.
- "The two nations are likely to have multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties"? Again, even taking this speculation at face value, so what? We don't say "hmm, here's a protocol on human trafficking, here's another on double taxation, there's a good old cooperation and mutual assistance treaty; voilà, notable relationship". Doesn't work that way. If there's a source on this topic discussing said treaties, sure, mention them. But it's not up to us to decide what does or doesn't constitute evidence of notable relations.
- So yes, please let us know how the search goes, but I'm not holding my breath that something relevant will just happen to turn up. Trivia like what we've seen so far, probably, but nothing substantive actually dealing with relations between the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Republic of the Philippines. - Biruitorul Talk 21:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again, the respective size of minority groups matters for these bilateral relations articles; their nationals are likely to need consular help, emigrate and immigrate, and the two nations are likely to have multiple bilateral and multilateral treaties. For example, Uruguay and The Commonwealth of the Philippines were allies at the end of World War II. There is a huge category of articles about the Filipino diaspora, and those People have tended to settle in port cities and countries with easy access by airplane, such as Uruguay (but not Bolivia). I can't do it right now/today, but I will search for additional sources. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.