Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quelitu (computer operating system)

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. As pointed out, no reliable sources with significant coverage have been put forward. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quelitu (computer operating system)

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

A non-notable Linux distribution, it fails WP:GNG. The only two third-party references cited are a paragraph on the Distrowatch waiting list which is a press release description written by the submitter to the list and a user-submitted item on Famous Why, neither of which establish notability. A search for other sources found nothing other than blogs and other self-published sources. This Wikipedia article seems to be here predominantly to promote the article subject. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage. Offer the creator the option of userfication, as per Wikipedia:Too soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO AHUNT (See also Quelitu Talk page):

Opinions Represented as Facts:

Several things in the first paragraph above (Ahunt 17:33, 1 July 2012) are actually opinions represented as facts:

"a paragraph on the Distrowatch waiting list which is a press release description written by the submitter to the list"

"a user-submitted item on Famous Why"

"neither of which establish notability"

FamousWhy:

1) Not ruled as illegitimate by Wikipedia.

2) As already stated, the issue is not who submitted the software (you provide no evidence for who did or that FamousWhy does not search for new software themselves, in addition to what is submitted). What is important is whether they review the software or just post what the publisher submits.

3) The review reads as a review by FamousWhy.com and is introduced by "FamousWhy Editor:" Are you accusing these people are lying? Do you have any any evidence of your allegations?

4) Wikipedia has not ruled FamousWhy to be WP:SPS either. This is just your own opinion. SPS is meant for forums (where anybody can write their own opinion) and 'not-independent' sources like the developers' website in this case. That does not seem to be the case for FamousWhy, which is a big, well-established website, not a forum.

5) FamousWhy gets 60 hits on Wikipedia. Nobody else has had problems with it, INCLUDING YOURSELF when you quoted only the negative parts from its page!

DistroWatch:

1) You offer no evidence for "DistroWatch listing on the waiting list is just a copy of the project developer's statement".

2) There is a Wikipedia ruling on DistroWatch: "DistroWatch alone is not enough...". It is not "DistroWatch [it] wouldn't establish notability...". DistroWatch is not 'alone' in establishing notability, and you offer only allegations and unsubstantiated opinions in support of your case against FamousWhy, which is used in 59 other Wikipedia articles.

Obvious Bias:

Your Revision of 17:27, 20 June 2012 added the following section:

-- Reception --

FamousWhy.com described the installation of Quelitu as "a little difficult for the average user" and also termed installation "a bit tricky". (reference was FamousWhy.com)

1) You pulled the ONLY negative aspect in the review (quoting it TWICE) and OMITTED all of the positive. Was this fair and balanced? Surely you must know about the need to provide balanced criticism and cover both sides of the coin in 'Reception' sections.

2) The quote was also out of context and misleading as you failed to mention that it applied to the FIRST VERSION 2010, not the current one. You revised the section (June 23rd) after I deleted it for being misleading and unbalanced.

3) You did not have a problem quoting negative material from a source (FamousWhy) you believe to be illegitimate!

What seems to be happening here is that you resented being criticized (15:24, 22 June 2012‎); you then proceeded to insult me (16:23, 23 June 2012‎) by suggesting I had deleted the section because I did not like criticism. Most people would find this offensive. You are now trying to have the Quelitu page deteled.

Your 20 June entry was biased, 100% ONE-SIDED, and MISLEADING. You should have quickly apologized or stated that it was not your intention to mislead instead of insulting me.

My criticism was that the (short 22-word) entry was "Misleading & Unbalaced". That criticism was PERFECTLY justified and I clearly did not object to criticism. You should not expect others to write your material for you, and most contributors will not waste time modifying something so biased and showing no attempt at balance.

By insulting me, you make this ackward for everybody and are dragging other people into this with the page deletion. In everybody's interest, I am asking that you refrain from further involvement with the Quelitu page and that you withdraw your Deletion Notice. Please do so before July 3rd, 2012.

I am shocked that this could be happening in the first place.

Shame on Wikipedia! Green2424 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well you seem to have hit just about every point at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, plus WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Let's see what consensus is arrived at about this article over the next week as this deletion discussion proceeds. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles require independent third-party sources in order to establish notability. User-submitted content is not a reliable source. This article does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Green2424's comments, I think some things need to be clarified. "Wikipedia" does not rule on things, but rather we operate largely by WP:CONSENSUS. Concerning your comments about FamousWhy: The review is not "by FamousWhy", FamousWhy.com is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. FamousWhy is a host for submitted content, not the author of the content. There is no editorial oversight, and according to their own website FamousWhy is not the publisher, all they do is distribute content that has been submitted to them. That's why the source is considered is a self-published source. That's not to say the source is wrong or inaccurate, only that it isn't considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's standards, especially for establishing the notability of the subject.

Regarding the DistroWatch issue, being submitted to DistroWatch doesn't convey notability, why would it? In order to be listed on DistroWatch, a Linux distribution has to exist for a while, that's it (or you could buy your way in for $200, and the fact that advertisers can dictate content means it's not an independent source, and cannot establish notability). However, this isn't even a case of a DistroWatch entry, which wouldn't convey notability anyways. This distro was submitted to DistroWatch, and was placed on a waiting list. Do you know what you have to do to be put on that waiting list? Two things: (1) your distro has to exist, and (2), you have to email them. Either way, this doesn't convey any notability to the article. - Sudo Ghost 12:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although more should be added to the article. Here are some more references which should help close the deal once included:

- http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/news.php?item.644.9 - http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/news.php?item.679.9 - http://www.ibiblio.org/software/distributions/ - http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quelitu-4-12-04-is-Based-On-Lubuntu-12-04-and-Bodhi-Linux-273854.shtml - http://www.e-linux.it/news_detail/new-distributions-added-to-waiting-list-quelitu --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your links, in order: This is a blog, which is a WP:SPS. This website and this website are both mirror download sites, not independent sources (search WP:RSN for softpedia, for example). This is simply a brief blurb that it was submitted to DistroWatch, with no significant coverage. It's also user-submitted content. None of these links are third-party reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject, and convey no notability to the article. - Sudo Ghost 18:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:SudoGhost, on that analysis. I found all of those during my search for sources and collectively mentioned them in the nomination above as "a search for other sources found nothing other than blogs and other self-published sources." None of these confer notability as required by WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (if I get a vote) I will be adding IMPORTANT new information (evidence) in a couple of days. If you have voted, please visit again this page. It might change your vote.

In the mean time, you should consider that while some sources might have weaker notability, together they add up.

Softpedia is NOT A MINOR DOWNLOAD WEBSITE. It has been around for over 10 years and, "As of December 2008, it was one of the top 500 websites according to Alexa traffic rankings" (quoted from its Wikepedia page!). iBiblio is NOT A MINOR DOWNLOAD WEBSITE: "As an "Internet librarianship," ibiblio is a digital library and archive project. It is run by the School of Information and Library Science and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with partners including the Center for the Public Domain, IBM, and SourceForge" (again, quoted from its Wikipedia page). SudoGhost, frankly I am shocked as some of the the information your provide. Green2424 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:AFDs are not decided by votes, but by consensus, based on the strength of the arguments presented as judged by the closing admin. This AFD should run until 8 July, so feel free to improve the article in the meantime. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you misread my comment. I did not say either ibiblio or Softpedia were minor download websites, I said they were mirror websites, i.e. they host a place for people to download the iso. Therefore they aren't independent of the subject, and notability is established by sources that have no connection to the subject.. - Sudo Ghost 19:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I did misread the word mirror. Ibiblio is not just a download site. It is an online library that has some form of oversight (was correcting while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green2424 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiblio has curatorial oversight, not editorial oversight. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see how the rr looks like an n, so it's all good. ibiblio's reliability isn't the issue, and it's a wonderful project, but it doesn't convey notability to this article because it isn't independent of Quelitu. - Sudo Ghost 21:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the deletion notice on the other page (Quelitu) supposed to stay up till this is over? The deadline of the notice is July 5th? I was planning to delete it before that (because I disagree with it) and I am not sure if this is correct given that this process is going on. Green2424 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the delete notice on Quelitu (computer operating system), then yes, it says there. WP:PROD notices can be removed, but WP:AfD notices require a consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD notice on the article page at Quelitu (computer operating system) says in part " this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", so it will be removed by the closing admin when this discussion is closed. Unless the discussion gets relisted for an extra week that should be on 8 July 2012. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I see no independent in-depth editorials on topic. DistroWatch's and ibiblio's summary retells the description from the project's home page (the fact that the text is the same suggests the authorship by Waves of the Future). Overall, WP:MILL instance with no indication of compliance with WP:N, WP:PRODUCT or WP:NSOFT. Also note, that the title of the article goes against Wikipedia's common naming scheme for such articles (word "computer" shouldn't be there) and the current text violates WP:NOTPROMO, so deletion is the only choice regardless of topic's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note: the common naming scheme violation you cite is not a valid deletion rationale. That would simply call for a move on the very slight chance this AfD is closed with anything other than delete. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point: the combination of wrong title and WP:NOTPROMO violation deem the fate of this article. If it had a right title, one could argue that WP:NOTPROMO issue can be solved with editing; if the text was not plain spam, one could handle the naming issue with article move. In this case neither the text nor the name warrant keeping, so if the community finds the topic notable (which is hard to imagine, frankly), the new text (written from scratch in order not to share this article's spammy content) is needed in another ___location, which makes this article useless for encyclopedic purposes anyway. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Czarkoff, and the fact that I see only a weak claim of notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEEMINGLY FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS/INFERENCES:

Distrowatch is user-submitted content: FALSE (see below)

Distrowatch waiting list is a press release description written by the submitter to the list: FALSE (see below)

Distrowatch: Quelitu has bought advertisement: FALSE (Quelitu is not on main list)

Distrowatch: Quelitu can dictate content: FALSE (Quelitu has not bought advertisement)

Distrowatch: You only need to email to be listed: FALSE (see below)

DistroWatch: Quelitu text is the same as on ibiblio: FALSE (many websites copy the description from the publisher and modify it: very common).

From http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit (SudoGhost's, above): "...would like to have it listed on DistroWatch, you should email us to tell us your project's website. There is no need to provide any details at this stage. We'll take a look at the website and will let you know if we need further information."

This suggests that Distrowatch evaluates distros and decides if they are appropriate for the list, possibly downloads and tests the iso (only 3 minutes to load in VirtualBox), then creates a brief review (i.e. not user-submitted content) for it.

FamousWhy: The review is not "by FamousWhy" FALSE ('FamousWhy Editor' IS CLEARLY listed as author)

FamousWhy: is a ONLY a host for submitted content, not the author of the content: FALSE (for software reviews)

FamousWhy: all they do is distribute content that has been submitted to them: FALSE (see below)

FamousWhy: has no editorial oversight: FALSE

(from their homepage: "All this is monitored by moderators")

(from TOS: "There are no guarantees that your articles will be accepted for publication in our directory")

http://www.famouswhy.com/terms_and_conditions/ (SudoGhost's, above): "FamousWhy.com is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. The text, images, and software on FamousWhy.com are the property of FamousWhy.com or its suppliers..." Second sentence clearly indicates that some content is FamousWhy's.

mirror: "a mirror site is an exact copy of another Internet site"

Ibiblio is a mirror and not independent: FALSE

Softpedia is a mirror and not independent: FALSE

Softpedia: No example on WP:RSN Green2424 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that FamousWhy's legally binding terms and conditions are...mistaken? I think I'll take their word over yours. Being monitored does not mean editorial oversight, it just means they ensure that items do not violate their ToS (which clearly says they aren't the publisher, just the distributor). That makes it a self-published source, because FamousWhy sure didn't publish it, unless your saying that FamousWhy is lying.

As for DistroWatch, it doesn't matter that Quelitu didn't purchase advertisements. DistroWatch is not a reliable source, because advertisers can dictate content. It doesn't matter that Quelitu did not, DistroWatch itself is what is unreliable. And that's ignoring the fact that a simple name added to a waiting list conveys absolutely no notability whatsoever.

For your mirror comment, I'm sorry but no. They mirror content on the servers hosting the iso, not the frontend website itself. They provide an alternate download for the iso, mirroring the primary download ___location. - Sudo Ghost 16:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FamousWhy: It has already been established that FamousWhy claims to own some content in Terms of Use. This is backed up by clearly identifying 'FamousWhy Editor' as author of reviews (there are many of them). They publish many articles submitted by others (as distributor), but they do not accept everything that is submitted, i.e. exercise some editorial control. Who's content are the Terms of Use? Let people decide, now.

DistroWatch: CNN, BBC News, and most websites have advertisers! So does PC Magazine! Users submit news tips or requests for topics to be covered/included. According to your logic, all of these are not notable sources because they have advertisers and advertisers can dictate content. Furthermore, they are user-submitted content because the ideas for many news is submitted by users, for example, a developer requesting by email that they review their software.

Mirror: According to your argument, every website that points to another page would be a mirror of that page. If PC Magazine does a full review of Quelitu and links to the download page, then PC Magazine becomes a mirror of the Quelitu website?

Green2424 (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Green2424, but it doesn't look convincing. At least it didn't convince anybody. Still, if you didn't give up yet, please try being a bit more succinct, as the discussion already became difficult to follow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with everything you said. FamousWhy owns "some content", but what the terms says is "The text, images, and software on FamousWhy.com are the property of FamousWhy.com or its suppliers". Also the imporant part is that they are not the publisher of these "reviews", their terms make that plain. A "FamousWhy Editor" doesn't mean that it somehow contradicts their ToS which says that FamousWhy is not the publisher. I am a "Wikipedia Editor", this doesn't mean Wikipedia endorses or reviews anything I write, as it is user-submitted. Unless you can show something saying that the ToS somehow did not apply to that particular page, they are not the publisher per their own legally binding terms of service; it is self-published user-submitted content. As for DistroWatch, the difference between DistroWatch and BBC News is that you cannot buy advertisement with BBC News and thereby dictate what news articles they publish; DistroWatch not only does this, but advertises this "feature" as a way to bypass the usual waiting period for submission. For the mirror, there is a difference between pointing a hyperlink to another page's servers, and hosting identical content on your own servers. That's what a mirror is. - Sudo Ghost 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Response to Ahunt's Comment (23:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC))

1) "hit just about every point at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion": Simply not true, just read the reference. It is at best a gross exaggeration, which is not appropriate by Wikipedia standards.

2) WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith.... This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary..." The biased entry+misleading content and insult added up to fairly clear evidence and raised the issue as to whether the Deletion Request was further retaliation.

3) WP:NPA: Your accusation/suggestion of personal attacks against you is unsubstantiated. WP:NPA considers the following to be a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green2424 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 July 2012 (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.