Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSU Open Source Lab

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. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSU Open Source Lab[edit]

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

Organization of dubious notability. No evidence of general notability or notability for organizations guidelines. Essentially an advertisement. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a department at a university. See here, stating "Oregon State University is giving its Open Source Lab a major promotion, moving it from a services role within the university into an academic department as part of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The switch will raise the Corvallis lab’s profile and involve dozens more students every year in a program that helped make Oregon a global hub for open source activity." Thus, I believe the proper section we should be looking at is Parts of schools and organizations, and if we are to follow the guidance there, the requirement for keeping this article is "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." So, has this lab made a significant contribution to its field? The article I linked would suggest that it quite possibly has. "For a time, its servers hosted the kernel for most influential open source project, the Linux operating system, and the lab continues to host about 75 others. The lab’s sponsors include IBM, Facebook and Google, which contributed $300,000 to the lab last year." here is a profile on the lab from linux.com. There's a couple more I found while Googling but the sources are dubious. In any case, I'm leaning towards weak keep pending further comments. VegaDark (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not Wikipedia policy or guidelines; it merely describes the general results of AfD's concerning schools.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I don't doubt the OSU Open Source Lab's importance, there aren't enough independent and reliable sources to establish notability of this topic. Looking at the sources provided in the Article:

References to the Open Source Lab's website are not considered independent sources, and thus cannot help to establish notability.
References to "CONNECT", "Fossology", "Sugar Labs", "OSL Ftp Map", "PowerDev Environment Access", "Ganeti", "Pydra", "Muddle", "Touchscreen", and "Maintain" cannot support the notability of OSU Open Source Lab as such (per WP:INHERITORG, notability is not inherited).
Finally, the external link to GOSCON (which incidentally has linkrotted), would clearly not be independent, as it was an annual event conceived and hosted by OSU Open Source Lab [1].

So far for resources already in the Article. On the basis of my own Google search and the references cited by VegaDark in his comment above, there are a few potential sources available. However, each of these sources have their own issues making them potentially unsuitable to establish notability:

Linux.com news post [2] (cited above): seems to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:IS, but it is unclear to what extent the editorial policy of Linux.com satisfies WP:RS.
Fox12 Oregon (KPTV) [3]: Assuming independence and reliability of Fox12 Oregon/KPTV in good faith, the only reference to OSU Open Source Lab (linked to) seems like a trivial mention, and in any case not significant enough to establish notability.
Silicon Florist [4]: Blog site by non-notable blogger, and therefore not enough for WP:RS.
Journal article in Technology Innovation Management Review [5]: Source clearly contains significant coverage, and the reliability of the source is likely derived from the journal and its editorial policy. However, the journal article was written by Anthony Casson and Leslie Hawthorn, both with ties to OSU Open Source Lab. This seems to go against the required independence, and I'm not sure whether the editorial policy of TIM Review could negate that.
The Oregonian (Oregon Live) [6]: the source is a blog post, written by a journalist from the Oregonian (Mike Rogoway), as part of the blog series "Silicon Forest". As I'm unable to determine whether the Oregonian has editorial discretion here, I must treat it as any other blog post. Therefore, the source does not meet WP:RS, despite clearly meeting WP:SIGCOV.

In conclusion, based on the assessment above, I cannot but !vote delete. The importance of this topic in the open source community, however, makes me wonder whether other reliable, independent sources exist which could establish the topic's notability. Seeing as I haven't found any during my search, my decision stands for now.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Talk2chun, while The Oregonian article is within Silicon Forest which they classify as a blog, it certainly appears as if it would be subject to the exception to WP:RS as "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The author is a journalist, and all appearances are that this article is subject to the Oregonian's editorial control. The subheader for the Silicon Forest blog is "News on Oregon tech companies from The Oregonian's Mike Rogoway." I highly doubt that they would brand something not subject to their editorial control as news. I will also note that the Silicon Forest section is accessible from the Oregonian's front page in the menu under News by topic -> Business which further indicates they are branding posts under this blog as news. VegaDark (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Michael Ten. I haven't actually researched this topic, and I don't know anything about Wikiversity; I'd never even heard of it before this AfD. So, my comment here is really just, Given a choice between deletion and moving it to another wiki which might be a more suitable home, transwiki seems the better option. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, and reading the questions from talk2Chun, below, striking my transwiki suggestion, and changing it to Weak Delete. Weak because I haven't put any effort into searching for sources, but just from reading the article, it doesn't seem like one that we need. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those who are suggestion a Transwiki to Wikiversity, I would like to ask you a few questions (as I am also considering whether a Transwiki would be possible):

How do you think that the content of this Article could contribute to Wikiversity's mission (i.e. to create and host a range of free-content, multilingual learning materials/resources, for all age groups and learner levels or to host learning and research projects and communities around existing and new materials), or it's scope?
Do you think that the sources cited in this Article, and perhaps other available uncited sources would meet the (somewhat different) requirements of Wikiversite in terms of citing sources, reliable sources or verifiability?
If Transwikied, what would be the odds of the transwikied page being deleted at Wikiversity under their own criteria for speedy deletion (especially #1.No educational objectives or discussion in history) or otherwise deleted per their deletion policy?

As I don't really see an added value for the Wikiversity project in the Article currently under discussion, I could not support a Transwiki !vote if it will just end up being deleted there instead.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a school lab. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 30 January 2017 (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.