Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMG! Ubuntu!

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. Obvious fail of WP:NWEB, no matter how useful the site might be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Ubuntu!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much everything on the page is only sourced to the blog itself and there is little to indicate any wider notability. Heronglen (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Heronglen (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable blog. I don't know if the parent company Ohso is any more notable (though I don't see much online). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Graner ref from Ubuntu User cited in the article (ref 3) is an independent third party news site and paper magazine that published an extensive profile on the subject and references a large part of this article. As such the article meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one reference - multiple references are required, so maybe you can nominate another 1 or 2. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete Certainly one of the most notable and influential news blogs in the field.[1] It interviewed key people in the Linux community (Jono Bacon [2], Mark Shuttleworth [3], Linus Torvalds [4], Jeff Waugh [5], etc.), it is regularily used as a source by established tech websites (Linux.com [6], SlashGear [7], EFYTimes.com [8] PC World [9], LifeHacker [10] PC Gamer [11], Engadget [12], DistroWatch [13] etc.), and has been covered by other news sites (MakeUseOf,[14] , Dailynews.com [15]). There is also coverage of its move to Canonical’s JuJu service by Ubuntu.com [16]. --Iketsi (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Iketsi above. Google Books Search also shows published guides recommending OMG! Ubuntu! as a source of Ubuntu-related news. — daranz [ t ] 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So no one is doubting that the site isn't very good at what it does, if not the best, but it doesn't pass WP:NWEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I've checked all of the sources, and the closest to a contender is ubuntu-user.com. The sources from Iketsi are either SPS interviews (don't help with notability) or casual mentions from other sites (which may prove a reliance, but OMG is never a subject of a non-trivial work). It looks like it's worth mentioning its influence in some Ubuntu culture article, but it doesn't pass the criteria for its own article. czar · · 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the fact that OMG! Ubuntu! is the primary source of information for a substantial amount of news pertaining to Ubuntu, it would be a mistake not to have an article about it. Besides, there are more published works about the website, including coverage of it's recent move to JuJu, [17] as well as various books and articles, including The NTNU article Transfer of Ownership in Open Source Projects - Eric S. Raymond Versus New Media: The Case of Pinta by Robert Nordan, which writes about OMG! Ubuntu!'s involvement in the development of Pinta, or more specifically, how the website's social impact made Pinta's revival possible.[18]. OMG! Ubuntu! is also presented in Beginning Ubuntu Linux: Natty Narwhal Edition (1430236264) as a "site to check on a regular basis for news about future releases of Ubuntu and upcoming applications [...]", where one can find "the most up-to-date information about the development of new software, new trends in the development of Ubuntu, and analyses of the future of Ubuntu". All 3 are "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Iketsi (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right—I don't doubt that it's a boon or notable for the Ubuntu community. This is about inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, many of the best sources on experimental music do not make the cut for inclusion as articles. The GNG says articles need significant coverage, so the passing mention in Beginning Ubuntu Linux or the tech websites above wouldn't help there. Canonical's announcement of involvement with OMG (ref17) is a self-published source and doesn't help to establish notability either. Ref18, that NTNU article, comes a bit closer (along with the ubuntu-user.com ref, if that source is reputable) to being a secondary, reliable source, but as you can see, we're struggling to prove notability. Once OMG graduates from a blog to a news source at the subject of others' articles, it'll have what it needs for WP notability. czar · · 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Despite the website's notability, there are not enough sources about it to write a full article. Iketsi (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.