Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnik browser

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. The policy concern, WP:ATT, has been addressed, and it appears to pass WP:NOTE's standard as well. Shimeru 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik browser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Article about a very short lived software project, which is just basically a port of a browser engine to a platform that hardly anyone has heard of. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Appears to be a genuine product and most recent release was this month so presumably still in use - however article does not assert notability. Iridescenti 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Remains to be seen whether the browser is "short-lived" (gee, thanks). Also what does "platform hardly anyone has heard of" have to do with it, only Windows/Mac/Linux browsers are notable? I think it is notable for people who are interested in browsers. DanielM 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean short-lived as in "won't last long" or "dead", I meant it as in "only been around for a matter of months". And notability is generally held to mean third-parties have talked about it. Can you point to anyone talking about it aside from yourselves, or forum postings? For people who are interested in browsers, it is only notable in that "WebCore" has been ported to another platform, which suggests it should just be a short mention on the "WebCore" page, not an entire article. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW DanielM you are the editor with the most edits to MorphOS and you started the article in question here. Would you mind telling us whether you have any involvement in either MorphOS or the Sputnik browser? AlistairMcMillan 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you feel like you are entitled to quiz me, AlistairMcMillan. I don't mind saying I have no financial interest in them. Is it too much "involvement" for you if I use them? DanielM 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:AlistairMcMillan please sign your posts, and please assume good faith. User:DanielM may be simply a MorphOS fan, and even if he did have involvement with either the browser or the OS, thats not necessarily an issue with WP:COI. The problem with this article is that it doesn't directly assert notability (though the talk page does, several times as mentioning it as "the only working Amiga browser"). If that can be properly sourced, then it would certainly be notable, whether the information lives on this page or gets merged to the MorphOS page. Weak Keep if a reliable source pops up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CosmicPenguin, but I do assume good faith. Perhaps I've seen too many software developers come along here and start up pages about their brand new projects. However I was kind of wondering whether this was the same {redacted} who "represented Genesi by demoing the system at Dayton Ohio's Computerfest". AlistairMcMillan 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting ugly now. Alistair, are you going to look up and post my phone number and address next? Maybe this is the point where I am supposed to start Googling for you, but I don't think I will. DanielM 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be overreacting a little bit. Searching for your name and MorphOS returns over five thousand results. Given that we have rules about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and we have people coming here all the time creating pages about their software projects Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RM-X_General_Purpose_Control Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vncscan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Remote, do you really think it is out of order to ask if you are involved with the project? AlistairMcMillan 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And from where did you get my name? It hasn't been previously disclosed on Wikipedia as far as I know. But yeah, you got the right guy. I demoed the Pegasos and MorphOS at a fold-out table at Computerfest Dayton in 2003. At that I wore a Genesi shirt that had been given me and I did write at that MorphOS fan page with the world map that I "represented" Genesi there. I received no money for that, but a year or more earlier I had paid $600 for a Pegasos mainboard, a discount, with the understanding that I would demo the board at Computerfest that year (2002). But it didn't work out and I decided to go the next year. I also attended CES 2003 where I shared a hotel room that Genesi had paid for for two nights. I snapped some shots and stood at the stand there, not really needing to because they had about 13 people, between wandering around to enjoy the show, running the 5K (or was it a five miler), and infecting my friends there with an unholy flu bug that I had caught just before flying out (on frequent flyer miles). The arrangement was all wholly informal "sure, come on out, we'll set you up with a room." I think the discount, the hotel room, and the shirts are the only things I ever got from Genesi, no money certainly, and I didn't expect or ask for anything else. I also demoed the Pegasos at my computer user group in 2002, and when Genesi held a show near my town in late 2003, this was at my initiative and for the enjoyment of it. Since 2003 I haven't attended anything like that that I recall, hard to believe three and a half years have gone by. I said above that I have no financial interest in MorphOS or Sputnik and that I am a user of them, and that is how I see myself. But you've done your detective work well, hope it's as sordid as you imagined. I think you're insufficiently tying it all back to Sputnik though, a browser that is not even sold, it's given away. When you figure out where my payoff is coming from, Alistair, please give me a call on my cell-phone or perhaps a letter or maybe you can have an enforcer drop by my place and show me his brass knuckles. As for a conflict of interest about any of this, I'd rather hear perspectives from anyone who is not you. DanielM 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I take it back. You aren't overreacting at all.  :) AlistairMcMillan 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability; fails WP:ATT, our most important policy. Kafziel ^Talk 11:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok voted KEEP on the article's discussion page. DanielM 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay first of all this isn't a poll. Second, if you want Henriok's opinion to count towards the result, then please ask him to leave a comment here. Note: a comment, not a vote. Thirdly please read Wikipedia policy: I've lost count of the number of people who have told you know, but it is the lack of evidence that this piece of software is notable that is leading towards its deletion. The obvious way to fix this is to provide something that proves notability. AlistairMcMillan 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just arguing over words now. Henriok's position ought to be included if we know what it is. Please stop with your lecturing tone. That's just your opinion that the article is being lead towards its deletion. DanielM 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) PS: From where did you get my name?[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. AlistairMcMillan 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what he wrote at my talk page:

The temptation to be sarcastic is almost too much to bear.

* Step 1) Type "daniel morphos" into Google. * Step 2) There is no step two.

Mystery solved. Now, if you don't mind, could you please cite a reliable source that establishes the notability of the Sputnick browser. AlistairMcMillan 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AmiGR and Henriok already said on the article's talkpage why they believe it is notable:

Keep - This web browser is notable since it's the only really modern for MorphOS, it's based on the second most popular Open Source webb-browser source (WebCore) and it's under active development. -- Henriok 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is notable in that it is the first working browser on AmigaOS-related platforms (MorphOS currently, will be ported to AmigaOS4 and others) to support modern web technologies like CSS and reasonable JS. AMiGR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.96.77.103 (talk • contribs) 19:51, March 18, 2007 (UTC)

I concur with that. The statement in the article about modernity incl. CSS support is sourced to a computer news portal website with editorial controls over news releases, as well as to a print magazine. DanielM 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is no user called Special:Contributions/AmiGR and Special:Contributions/81.96.77.103 has no other edits except to the relevant talk page and the article on Yeast. AlistairMcMillan 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for "print magazine" please read magazine produced by an Amiga user group. AlistairMcMillan 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact a professional full-length quarterly print magazine. I've had a subscription to it for more than a year. DanielM 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this very notable web browser, is the article going to just be one paragraph? Can someone provide a screenshot (keeping established conventions in mind)? Is "WebKit was ported to MorphOS" the only thing that can be said about it? Really, if you think the thing is notable enough for a whole article, surely you can say more than one paragraph about it? AlistairMcMillan 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlistairMcMillan, you've now done two things that I've never had done to me in almost two years of editing Wikipedia. First, you've posted my real name. This after Googling my username and the subject of an article that I edited, going through the results until you found the Daniel you were looking for, in some sort of detective effort to find a conflict of interest for this, an article about a browser programmed by one guy and given away at no charge. Second, you have modified a comment I made above, to draw a line through the name AmiGR.

It doesn't help me to tell you not to post my real name again, you've already done it. I will tell you not to modify comments that I have made. You may rebut them immediately after, but leave my comments for the Wikipedia record as I wrote them. I have restored my comment to the way I posted it and undid your damage to it. If you change it again, I guess I will see about complaining to an admin about you.

I am astounded at the level of personal antipathy you have towards this, an innocuous article about a free browser for an alternative computer platform. You are sarcastic and rude and seem determined to throw stuff at it until it falls down. I can't imagine it is actually about this article and can only surmise you are misdirecting your negative feelings about something else. DanielM 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know you could spend this time trying to improve the article. And please don't exaggerate, out of the first ten results for "daniel" and "morphos", five mention your full name. Hardly qualifies as some sort of detective effort. AlistairMcMillan 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I am a Morphos user myself and I agree that not too many people care about Amiga like operating systems anymore, but a web browser that supports today’s standards was one of the most missed programs for this systems, so Sputnik is seen as a big breakthrough.Weiseb 07:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been five or more days and the discussion shows that most see the notability of the Sputnik browser article. As several noted, it is notable for being the first browser for MorphOS that is capable of modern standards such as CSS. This is reliably sourced in the article, to an alternative computer news portal with editorial controls, as well as to a print magazine. One editor comment that "hardly anyone has heard of" the OS but number of users does not equal notability any more than Wikipedia is a democracy. Neither does a small number of users equal non-notability. The same editor went on to imply that since the print magazine is produced by an Amiga user group that it is somehow suspect and unreliable, but the magazine is full-length and high quality and released and mailed on a reliable schedule and generally lives up to a very high standard. This may be directly observed by reading the sample articles at the website. The same opposing editor appeared to be attempting to make the case that I as the article's originator had a conflict of interest because I presented Pegasos computer hardware at a computer show 3 1/2 years ago. To do this he Googled my first name (which is included in my user name) as well as MorphOS, the Pegasos operating system on which Sputnik runs. Finding something he regarded as incriminating he then posted my full name in this discussion. This was against my wishes and I believe against Wikipedia policy, but the salient point for this debate is that he failed to actually show a conflict of interest. By any reasonable standard I am not "involved" with Sputnik, a freely released browser programmed by one person who is not me. To summarize, I believe the discussion shows that Sputnik browser is notable and that the article (a stub right now) is fairly well-sourced (given its nature as a new program for a less-known alternative OS) and that the article is an appropriate and valuable addition to Wikipedia. DanielM 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know something, if you had devoted this much time and energy to improving the article it might be something worth keeping. The four sources you have come up with are all to do with the Amiga community, no sources from outside that community. The three web sources all pretty much just say "someone ported WebKit to MorphOS and here is a brief list of features" and nothing else. The magazine source does have an interview, but we can't see that to determine if there is anything in there that might be interesting: for example is it just a direct port or has the developer added any new feature like the Nokia guys did with their port.

About your name. I am genuinely sorry that I revealed your real name. Given that you use your first name and the first initial of your second I didn't think for a second that you were trying to hide your identity. But the fact is I asked you whether your had any involvement with the project, when I already knew you had some contact with Genesi hoping you would say something like "yeah I helped out at a booth for free a couple of days but I'm only a user" or something, not the cryptic "I have no financial interest" answer. For what it is worth, I genuinely believe you that you have no involvement in either MorphOS or Sputnik, aside from being an interested user. And, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have any policy about protecting editors identities. Wikipedia:Anonymity is almost a blank page and our Wikipedia:Privacy policy basically says don't use your real name if you want to be anonymous. You might be thinking of WP:BLP but that is about biography articles not editors themselves.

Which all doesn't change the fact that the only way in which this software is notable is that (a) WebKit has been ported to another platform and (b) MorphOS now has a browser. Notes to be added to other articles, not enough for a whole article itself. AlistairMcMillan 03:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's factually incorrect in (b). MorphOS has at least three other browsers. Voyager (web browser), IBrowse, AWeb. As said by others in this discussion and me, one reason Sputnik is notable is because it is the *first browser for MorphOS to support modern standards such as CSS*. And Alistair, I'll return your comment, your time would be better spent in positive activities. At least I try to make an article that people will be interested in and use as a resource to learn about the subject, whereas you just try to pick it off. DanielM 14:53, 24 March 2007 (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.