Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paludis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paludis

Paludis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This software has no use in being in Wikipedia at this time. It is unfinished software and used by a very small section of the community (mostly developers). There are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia. The article is an attempt to try and gain publicity. Cokehabit 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Keep - Paludis is a very relevant topic for the Linux, and more specifically, Gentoo community. And I can't see how the Paludis article fits into any of these categories. Also, the fact that there are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia is not a valid justification to not have the Paludis article. dave 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - If you're upset the others aren't in Wikipedia then add them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.34.129.204 (talk • contribs).

— 74.34.129.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Seems fine to me. As mentioned it is definitly has a major role in the gentoo community, especially since its inspired the PMS, which is going to define ebuilds so different package managers can use them. Also if its unfinished, at most a tag should be placed on it. Most software (especially in OSS) is never finished, for example WINE : but that doesnt mean it shouldnt have an article. Thothonegan 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - Not noteworthy enough yet to qualify for a wikipedia article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.200.93.67 (talk • contribs).

— 68.200.93.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - This deletion request is more a stealthy personal attack than an objective opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.26.21 (talk • contribs).

— 72.205.26.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Paludis is an actively developed open source software project. There is no particular reason for it not to be included in WP, and none of the arguments presented are in the least convincing. Djiann 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Paludis is completely relevant. Moreover, the user who proposed it for deletion is doing so to make a statement outside of the Wikipedia community (in particular, the Gentoo community, or even more particularly, a point for the subset of the Gentoo community which outright hates ciaranm). As such, I recommend that all people participating in this debate keep that fact in mind, and keep Wikipedia's interests first over personal interests in an external project's politics. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This comment is very revealing to me... with all of the redlinks here, it would not surprise me if we have an outside source sending people here to vote on this subject.Balloonman 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This article is very relevant to Gentoo and deserves to be in Wikipedia. I see no good reasons to get the article deleted. All indicates that this request is only about personal issues, not about the article itself. 1. No software is ever "finished". That is totally bogus argument. 2. Paludis already has a strong and growing userbase consisting both normal users and developers - users are mostly non-developers. This can be seen easily by reading Paludis support threads at http://forums.gentoo.org. They all are very active. 3. Cokehabit is free to add articles about other package managers if he so desires. 4. Any article on Wikipedia can be seen as "an attempt to gain publicity". There is nothing special in Paludis article in this regard. Someone mentioned quality: I agree, we can always try to improve the quality of this and other articles. This article is definitely a keeper. Paapaa125 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment looks to me like we have a case where folks don't know to read the notability standards but instead are relying on us believing their personal words. Sorry folks, but the key to avoiding deletion is to use third-party reliable sources providing coverage of this software. The nominator really should have made this clear, but oh well. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent references can be shown. There's a lot of red ink on here voting to keep. Please show us some sourcing for this claimed relevancy. Cap'n Walker 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Independent reference - Here is one independent article on Paludis in LWN.net: http://lwn.net/Articles/240399/ I'll try to find more if needed. Paapaa125 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
More are going to be needed, as LWN is a single website, and not quite on the top end of reliable sources. In addition, I can't find any real biography of Donnie Berkholz who wrote the page, but I do see he's a Gentoo developer. That might lead to a COI problem. I suggest you keep looking. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the link posted. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that more sources exist. Also think this could be construed as being something that'd appear in a "specialized encyclopedia" (WP:5) Corpx 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say keep for now, though the article has some problems which edge it towards promotion of its subject ("See the Paludis website for a more complete list"). It needs more in the way of sources demonstrating notability. — BillC talk 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article deletion is motivated only from personal reasons. I would advise readers to look at the history of this article, see here. Though the deletion proposal was submitted anonymously from the IP address 81.79.237.61, this blog post clears things up a bit. Killsound 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - This article (in it's current form) is bias, incomplete, and spamish. Wikipedia isn't about Gentoo politics, it's about providing useful information to the majority, so either update the article to confirm to wikipedia guidelines or retract it. --Aidanjt 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - content doesn't have to be useful to the majority, there's a great deal of stuff on wikipedia which is of no use whatsoever to most people. The point is that the subject of an article needs to be notable, the information veriable, NPOV, and not original research. I make no comment as to whether that is true or not for this subject and article. SamBC(talk) 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well you couldn't base your package management research on it, and that's basically what I mean. --Aidanjt 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete . Until it has widespread use then the notability will always be in question. As a young project it should be worth waiting until the time that it's inclusion benefits wikipedia. Cokehabit 20:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment how widespread the use is is irrelevant in itself. Notability is determined through coverage in reliable (third-party) sources. SamBC(talk) 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Update Right now the article only seems to be a list of features of paludis over regular portage. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the article in question look like nothing more than cheap advertising for the project. At the very least someone should add information to the article about other portage replacements and the motivation behind creating something like this in the first place, that is to say, put actual content in the article. Jyujin 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep and Update I agree that the quality of the article is very low and as such it is not worth much. The article should objectively try to tell about the major differences between Portage and Paludis - features, performance, usage and design. Also the PMS (Package Manager Specification) is very relevant to this issue as it is the thing that makes it possible for Gentoo to have multiple package managers.Paapaa125 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep now that there have been updates I've expanded the article somewhat and reworded to address much of the above criticism. I'd also like to point out that the criticism coming from Cokehabit and his sockpuppet User:81.79.237.61 should be taken with a large pinch of salt, given his previous attacks on Paludis. Trollup 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I would like to point out that Trollup only registered today (14 August) Cokehabit 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone finds evidence of notability from reliable sources. Gentoo pages aren't, and LWN doesn't appear to be. Is there any actual media coverage of this? The tech media tends to find and write about such things if they're worth it - even in print, like Linux Journal or Linux Format or similar. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment—the abundance of redlink usernames and IPs is extremely concerning. — Deckiller 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. The abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic is extremely concerning Hu12 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment.The abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic is extremely concerning --Hu12 05:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the notability of this package manager is made apparent using reliable and independent sources. (The nomination is poorly argued. Neither being unfinished nor having a small audience are criteria for deletion, and the presence or absence of other topics has no bearing on a particular topic's fit within the guidelines. Finally, whether or not the article is an attempt at publicity (By whom?, it must meet notability requirements, in particular those for software. In the future please make a deletion argument based in a policy or guideline of Wikipedia.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this page is pure spam with no reliable independent sources.Balloonman 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no assertions of notability. It's written like an advertisement at any rate. i said 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 11:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply per WP:N and the reasoning of Dhartung.Pedro |  Chat  12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:N and reads like WP:SPAM. Jauerback 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N, and the lack of outside coverage on the subject. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. SamBC hit the nail on the head: there are not independent, reliable sources discussing this product. Without them, notability cannot be demonstrated. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If LWN.net alone doesn't qualify (as seems to be the case), then I agree, the notability at this point can't be demonstrated sufficiently. I couldn't find any other proper references, so in this case I agree with the (latest) majority. The funny thing is that the original nomination didn't have a single valid reason for getting the article deleted. Wikipedia needs a "Nomination for deletion" feature :-) Paapaa125 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The LWN source gives only slightly more than cursory coverage to the subject. Suggests that notability may be possible to demonstrate in the future, but not seeing any other non-blog secondary sources outside of the Gentoo project. MrZaiustalk 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If LWN and Gentoo Weekly News (note that this is not a Gentoo project under discussion, so GWN is an external source) aren't sufficient to establish notability then there are an awful lot of articles that need to be deleted. ATrollope 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • LWN would be adequate in the company of other notable third party sources. Calling Gentoo Weekly News a secondary source is stretching things, however. Give me LWN + Linux Journal or something of the sort, and I magically switch to Keep. MrZaiustalk 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That goes for me, also. The subject seems to be one "major" tech news source away from notability, IMO. SamBC(talk) 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a bad argument. Other articles that are poorly supported should probably have sources added (where possible), or otherwise be considered for deletion. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Needs better sources to be kept. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The software is not well know enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The article is only being used as an advertising tool. BalanceRestored 09:20, 17 August 2007 (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.