Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emesene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emesene[edit]
- Emesene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software project. This article has been tagged for lacking citations for 5 months. The external links section has no third party sources that would reference a claim to notability. Miami33139 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe Chill. The sources surely give notability to the article.Victor Silveira (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the references wonderfully provided by Joe Chill. Nice job! All the references are translated also! I will add these to the talk page of the article. Ikip (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sorry Guys and Joe. Even though you came up with a large amount of sources I'm not sure if any meet WP:RS. --Fbifriday (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:SOURCES, under Questionable Sources. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." To me it seems like these sources are either promotional or personal opinions. Also, one article heavily quotes, and even mentions, the wikipedia article (WP:CIRCULAR). --Fbifriday (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those personal opinions are reviews which are accepted. Reviews aren't promotional unless they aren't independent of the subject which they are. Joe Chill (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone accepts reviews, they are routine. I would not accept restaurant reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept toaster reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept software reviews as evidence of notability. Reviews confirm existence, but not notability. Wikipedia wants to cover things that are notable, not run of the mill and average. Miami33139 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barely anyone doesn't accept reviews. The main time that I see it is from ultra software deletionists. That opinion is bias and I have never seen that opinion get an article deleted. So what does that tell you about reviews and Wikipedia? By the way, that run of the mill page is an essay and the first one is a proposed guideline for news events. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the subject matter of the article is not influencing how I feel about these sources. The plain matter of fact is that reviews ARE a matter of opinion, and as such, are questionable sources. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're obviously misunderstanding it. WP:BK and WP:NF accepts reviews so it is obvious that reviews are accepted for software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most Films and Books use reviews for references of the plot. They don't, however, use reviews as the main argument for notability. --Fbifriday (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Film and book articles are constantly saved from AFD by reviews and I've been participating mainly in AFD for over a year. I've done it myself on Gummo, Feeders (film), McDull Kung Fu Ding Ding Dong, Slaughter Disc, Halloweenight, The A-Team (film), and Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger. That's why many articles have sections for reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone accepts reviews, they are routine. I would not accept restaurant reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept toaster reviews as evidence of notability. I do not accept software reviews as evidence of notability. Reviews confirm existence, but not notability. Wikipedia wants to cover things that are notable, not run of the mill and average. Miami33139 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, these sources are reviews. But, not every review is mere opinion; some of them are comments by experts on the subject. So, some of them are reliable sources. However, after I read again the sources, I'm not sure if the writers of those reviews are experts or supervised by one. The sources seems only reviews from download sites, but I'm not sure. In doubt, I prefer to keep my vote. If someone proves otherwise (the writer are not experts) or give any other convincing prove against these sources, I'll change my vote.Victor Silveira (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- infotec.com - This source is two paragraphs, then three paragraphs of complicated install how-to because it's linux.
- underpc, - This might be a reliable source, but five sentences and a screenshot are extremely trivial coverage.
- engadget genbeta - This is reliable source but also insignificant length (equivalent to about 30% of one page coverage if this was printed). It is also routine: It is an announcement of a 1.0 product. We want significant critical coverage. A feature list, install instructions, says it is open source. This has nothing of length, nothing of substance, nothing that says "this is notable."
- infos-du-net.com - This might be a reliable source. Three paragraphs and a screenshot. This is again routine coverage announcing it exists.
- tuxjournal.net - A one-user blog in Italian, not a reliable source. It contains two screenshots, reprints Wikipedia text, and then one paragraph of complicated Linux install instructions. It is an announcement of the 1.5 version. Re-writes of product announcements do not show notability!
- We would not document any other consumer product on Wikipedia based on these sources. Software does not get a free ride. Miami33139 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take Tux Journal out then because I actually agree with you there. I disagree with your other opinions and I know that you are extremely bias against software articles. Actually, I have seen other articles kept because of sources like that so that is false. The truth is, you are against all software reviews. You said the same thing about a source with over 10 paragraphs. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not biased against software, Wikipedia is biased towards software. I have the same prejudice against software that I do for all consumer products and services. We would not write an article about any consumer product based on these sources. The longest source here is five paragraphs? Significant would be five pages, or even a column length review from someone like Walt Mossberg. That we are accepting re-writes of product version announcements of minuscule length as evidence to declare something is an encyclopedia topic indicates something is very, very wrong. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bias for all consumer products and services. Even when they aren't reviews, you still aren't pleased. Your 5 pages comment screams bias. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue, I am easy to please when significant sources exist, as seen here, which you think we should delete!
- Bias for all consumer products and services. Even when they aren't reviews, you still aren't pleased. Your 5 pages comment screams bias. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not biased against software, Wikipedia is biased towards software. I have the same prejudice against software that I do for all consumer products and services. We would not write an article about any consumer product based on these sources. The longest source here is five paragraphs? Significant would be five pages, or even a column length review from someone like Walt Mossberg. That we are accepting re-writes of product version announcements of minuscule length as evidence to declare something is an encyclopedia topic indicates something is very, very wrong. Miami33139 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Miami, the size of a source is not a valid criterion to say if it is significant. If it is a reliable source, it is significant. By the way, there are many cases of a long text has less informations than a short one about the same subject. I think they give notability for the article. So, I'll still keep my vote.Victor Silveira (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely untrue. Notability requires significant coverage as point number one of the definition. Numerous other places discuss "depth of coverage" as a necessary element in determining notability. It explains in more detail: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Miami33139 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Miami, those sources surely satisfy point #1 because notability guideline does not say anything about the lenght of the source. The sources also have sufficient informations for improving the article and give it notability. So, they are reliable sources. The only doubful point of the sources is whether the article was written by an expert or supervised by one, as I said before. However, you can not prove it. Can you?Victor Silveira (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely untrue. Notability requires significant coverage as point number one of the definition. Numerous other places discuss "depth of coverage" as a necessary element in determining notability. It explains in more detail: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Miami33139 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click on the link up top to check out Google News search. There are plenty of sites that Google News search says are legitimate news venues, which makes them reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 09:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google news links to many sources which Wikipedia does not consider reliable. Google news searches also catch lots of mere mentions, version announcements, press releases and direct advertising. Can you identify any of the google news hits as significant coverage that shows the notability of this subject? Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep None of the reasons above are valid to delete the article, It doesn't need citations. -- Jordan "Eck" Samuel (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia requires that articles have citations as a core policy. Articles without citations should be deleted. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [6], there are fanvids as well[7]. The application has been recently updated in the main Ubuntu repository and its PPA is popular. A search engine query can show that emesene popularity is high in non-english speaking crowd (for some reason). Some may argue there is POV as the PPA is mine, but I thought it could be nice to support such project. Same with Wikipedia; well, sometimes... bjfs discuss 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not document fansites as evidence of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're the one interested in article deletion, eh? And I was wondering who got rid of the aMSN on Wikipedia, including the comparsion table. Suprisingly enough it was first to be blanked. This makes discussion futile... especially with people who have this policy pointed in their profile page. Writing "WE DO NOT" is a bit of wishful thinking as I don't feel a part of this questionable QA philosophy. Not trying to be diplomatic in here because I never tolerated this on any wiki I edit. How can one imagine a niche software being publicised in many so-called reliable sources ? And no I didn't edit anything about emesene in here and certainly don't fight for publicity in here. I see it as a step back as there is still a pack of people who'd like to read a brief note on their favorite project. What now, they should look at interwikis ? Will such "housekeeping" make Wikimedia servers more reliable, faster, reduce the donation costs by half ? IMHO it only makes more trouble than it's worth but probably boosts the ego of people who can't find luck elsewhere. We Wikipedians are so super-smart y'all hear ye ignorant heathens ;-) bjfs discuss 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that Wikipedia has goals and policies that do not intersect with yours. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're the one interested in article deletion, eh? And I was wondering who got rid of the aMSN on Wikipedia, including the comparsion table. Suprisingly enough it was first to be blanked. This makes discussion futile... especially with people who have this policy pointed in their profile page. Writing "WE DO NOT" is a bit of wishful thinking as I don't feel a part of this questionable QA philosophy. Not trying to be diplomatic in here because I never tolerated this on any wiki I edit. How can one imagine a niche software being publicised in many so-called reliable sources ? And no I didn't edit anything about emesene in here and certainly don't fight for publicity in here. I see it as a step back as there is still a pack of people who'd like to read a brief note on their favorite project. What now, they should look at interwikis ? Will such "housekeeping" make Wikimedia servers more reliable, faster, reduce the donation costs by half ? IMHO it only makes more trouble than it's worth but probably boosts the ego of people who can't find luck elsewhere. We Wikipedians are so super-smart y'all hear ye ignorant heathens ;-) bjfs discuss 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not document fansites as evidence of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (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.