- 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. The discussion tended towards keeping the article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Knopperdisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable operating system. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources (checked Google, Google News, Google blog search, technorati). Bongomatic 14:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per these Google results. Why should this not be notable? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the hits generated by that search do you believe to be significant and from a reliable source that is independent of the subject? I was unable to find any (I didn't look through hundreds of pages, but the first hundred entries or so). Rather, there are numerous software download pages, some blog entries, a couple of pages from the publisher, and this Wikipedia article and clones of it. Number of Google hits alone is not an argument for either keeping or deleting in a deletion discussion. Bongomatic 22:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many claims of lack of notability are ill-founded, and this is one of them. First I glanced at the article (I'm a layman here, and can only apply common sense). It is extremely factual, short, concise, to the point, almost terse - suitable for an OS article. I find absolutely no evidence of conflict of interest (COI), no canvassing, etc. Many different editors have contributed to the article.
- The article is also available on other Wiki projects, the Spanish one is of somewhat better quality, someone took the effort to add an OS infobox, the Catalan (surprise!) page is as extensive as the English, the Romanian is a very short stub. But obviously some editors found the stuff notable enough to create these pages. I also note that there is no Dutch page on the thing, although the Spanish (and the other projects except the English) mention that is was developed there. This would lead me to assume some notability in that corner of pygmae OS system buffs. It certainly weakens claims of lack of notability.
- Why shouldn't this terse information not be in an Encyclopedia like Wiki? What exactly would satify your thirst for notability. Yearly sales figues, market penetration and percent market share? Even if the system never made it to mainstream, wouldn't the sheer existence of the systems be worth of three lines on Wiki?
- And yes, I managed to find a Google Scholar hit. Somewhere in this enormously specialized world, some tech buffs refer to the specific quirks of this OS. I have made no attempt whatsoever to understand it, but they discuss "every distribution from these two sets uses the APT package management system" and they are concerned about "collisions" (?). So perhaps it could be interesting to somebody, I don't know. But I don't see a collision with Wiki's notability criteria. Cerf, L; J Besson, C Robardet, JF Boulicaut (2008), Data-Peeler: Constraint-Based Closed Pattern Mining in n-ary Relations (PDF), Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Did I mention that the page has existed for 3½ years. On other projects they attempt to improve the article when they see it. On the English wiki the kneejerk reflex seem to be to attempt to delete it.
- Power.corrupts (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many claims of lack of notability are ill-founded, and this is one of them. First I glanced at the article (I'm a layman here, and can only apply common sense). It is extremely factual, short, concise, to the point, almost terse - suitable for an OS article. I find absolutely no evidence of conflict of interest (COI), no canvassing, etc. Many different editors have contributed to the article.
- Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the twist side of above commentary by Bongo: Merely claiming something isn't notable doesn't make it so. What did you attempt to determine notability, Schuym1? - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Power corrupts comment does not change my mind. Schuym1 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's not my responsibility to find sources to determine an article's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a nominator's responsibility, however. I paged through lots of possible sources of for any presumption of notability (as mentioned in the nomination), but did not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you did mention that, both in your first and second posting. There are two principal issues: The first is the trivial one, that it takes me an awfull lot more effort to find sources, than it takes for you not to find any. And admittedly, I didn't find much, only one "hard" article, and it could rightfully be said, that Knopperdisk is not the centrality of that article.
Second, I would strees that it is too simplistic to view other language Wiki project merely as "mirrors". Many will start as mirrors, and from the dates of creation, this appears also to be the case for this article. But the projects reach a new audience, and may grow in different directions. At the very least, I find it problematic, to AfD an article without consulting these other projects. I have just located the main Spanish contributor es:Usuario:Shooke. I think I will drop him a line asking what he thinks about this AfD. Let's see what happens... Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you did mention that, both in your first and second posting. There are two principal issues: The first is the trivial one, that it takes me an awfull lot more effort to find sources, than it takes for you not to find any. And admittedly, I didn't find much, only one "hard" article, and it could rightfully be said, that Knopperdisk is not the centrality of that article.
- It is a nominator's responsibility, however. I paged through lots of possible sources of for any presumption of notability (as mentioned in the nomination), but did not find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 16:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the twist side of above commentary by Bongo: Merely claiming something isn't notable doesn't make it so. What did you attempt to determine notability, Schuym1? - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is a notable software, DistroWatch (a important web site of distros) consider it, please see in http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=knopperdisk , this is from Netherlands. And can probe in google more than 23,000 topics, thanks Shooke (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention in Distrowatch is precisely the sort of directory entry that does not demonstrate notability. Bongomatic 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it "not demonstrate notability" ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Outreach comment It could be interesting to take this a littel further, just for the fun of experimenting. I have left messages at Editor user pages at the other wiki project, and I will post a general message at the discussion pages there. I will also drop an email to Knoppedisk itself, they should have precisely the type of information Bongomatic is requesting - I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Let see what happens... Power.corrupts (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Left this request at their webpage: Sirs, There is currently a discussion at the English Wikipedia concerning the so-called notability of your software. Apparently, little can be found at the Internet on third party, independent commentary on your product. I wonder if you would like to comment on that discussion, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knopperdisk#Knopperdisk. Remember that your answers must be highly factual and that any claims must meet Wiki's requirements of verifiability. Your answers must not be worded in a way, that they could be interpreted as advertising either. Sincerely, power.corrupts on en.Wikipedia Power.corrupts (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it "not demonstrate notability" ? Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention in Distrowatch is precisely the sort of directory entry that does not demonstrate notability. Bongomatic 05:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongomatic, how do you demostrate that some software is notable? You say "Unable to find coverage in reliable sources", is false because you "not found reliable source" not demostrate nothing Shooke (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject--like a full review in InfoWorld. See WP:ORG for more details. Bongomatic 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongomatic, how do you demostrate that some software is notable? You say "Unable to find coverage in reliable sources", is false because you "not found reliable source" not demostrate nothing Shooke (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have received a reply from Sander Knopper, the developer of this Operating System. I am waiting for his permission to post it here, I could be meant as personal communication, and I forgot to ask in the first mail. He doesn't actively maintain it any longer, he has little interest in Wiki notability criteria, and he perhaps appears somewhat indifferent, if Wiki has an article or not on Knopperdisk.
- I gave it some thought and took a second look at the notability guidelines. Bongomatic, right under you quoted lines the following criteria are listed: Significant coverage is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive"; sources are reliable, certainly verifiable; Independent of the subject - I would say yes to all of them. But above all, I think that Jimmy Wales' vision to "record the world's knowledge" is the guiding principle for me. The article is a factual as it can be, terse, the information is valid and verifiable. I cannot see at all how deletion of this information could add value to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I find it conceivable that the article, if retained, might add value (albeit marginal) to somebody. Perhaps I'm leaning on WP:NOTPAPER, perhaps I'm a hopeless inclusionist, perhaps I'm just hopeless. May I quote from WP:Notability: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort Power.corrupts (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sander Knopper now greenlighted that his mail to me is posted here:
- Well, if there's not much you can find on the internet regarding my project, than there probably isn't any. Quite frankly, the project is more or less dead, I haven't made a new release for years (I think) and there most likely won't be any in the near future. I use the name "project" on purpose as well here, since I don't think of it as a "product", therefore I also don't try to sell it or whatsoever. So if I can help you with any notability issues you might have, that's fine. But I think I can't be of much help since you seem to have searched quite thorough yourself, right? Anyway, like I said, I don't actively maintain it anymore, though from time to time I give some pointers to people who are interested in it and contact me the same way you have. So I don't really feel like investing that much time in it right now. Quite frankly, I have no interest in reading the notability rules or any other rules the wiki might have, but if you can put up some questions that would help notability, I'm willing to answer them. Best Regards, Sander Knopper. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sander Knopper now greenlighted that his mail to me is posted here:
- Keep -- listed on Distrowatch, even if it becomes unmantained people would be able to find the info about it on Wikipedia instead of Googling for info. man with one red shoe 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, listing on Distrowatch is not an indicator of notability. The ability to cross-reference non-notable listings is not a rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bongomatic 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongomatic, the two other editors appear to think that Distrowatch is an indicator of notability, you do not, either view appears subjective, bordering WP:POV, and neither view has been argued convincingly. I have no opinion on this, but would lean on the great variety of Google hits, that to me are indicative of "general interest". Power.corrupts (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, listing on Distrowatch is not an indicator of notability. The ability to cross-reference non-notable listings is not a rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bongomatic 23:10, 18 January 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.