Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTasker

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. None of the Keep comments provide any evidence of notability. Black Kite (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTasker

edit
UTasker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Operating System. Ridernyc (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Not seeing any coverage outside internet forums, blogs, and utasker.com. There's a lot of reliable sources that cover different aspects of computing and electronics (academic journals, trade mags, consumer mags, news websites, business publications, books...), so if a topic isn't mentioned in any of them it's probably not very important. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are notability links from major semiconductor companies like ATMEL, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS and Freescale (previously MOTOROLA) who recognise the OS and its special support - it is one of the only small OS which has advanced IPv6 support (the IPv6 part occupies about 5k of code space including 6in4 tunnelling) and it is unique in its ability to simulate the devices and complete projects virtually in real-time. The project is used by various schools and universities as parts of course work, also due to the fact that students can use it without needing expensive hardware and debugging tools (an important factor in developing countries). Furthermore it is used in many students' final year dissertation work. The Wikipedia entry helps such users to learn about these possibilities and capabilities and so benefit from its open source and free support nature. Therefore I believe that there is enough evidence of relevance as well as special uniqueness to merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. It is worth noting too that is is very difficult to get notability links for this type of project due to the fact that there is little published work from such user communities and professional users prefer not to make public the tools and sources that they employ. I don't think that some comments about 'importance' are always very fair. For example, when there was a note about the fact that there are about 7'000 registered users there were immediate 'sneers' and calls for deletion of something that is so 'insignificant'. One should not forget that this project is aimed at a specific and highly technical group of users and the user count cannot be compared with 'Facebook', for example - the project is well known in the technical community and can also be considered as successful because it allows real advantages to users of small internet-enabled processor, whether students, hobbyists or professionals.If there are issues with notability it would be constructive to suggest how this can be improved to fulfil the requirements. I suggest that anyone who believes that the project is "probably not very important" actually look at the project itself (it is free and can be tested on a PC without needing any HW) and make final judgement afterward (if relevent issue). • mjbcswitzerland • Talk • 13:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then you will have no issue showing us substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see an implicit preference for paper publications vs. information online as sources here... but does that make sense when the target audience for an embedded computing product is a computer engineering field whose practitioners are virtually all already on-line? It's gotten to the point where at least one major electronics parts distributor (Digikey) doesn't print a paper catalogue anymore but merely one huge .pdf as their website *is* their catalogue for most of their clients. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such preference. All that is required is substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the thread you mention indicates this AfD was already tried in 2009... could this be yet another example of someone repeatedly re-nominating the same page for deletion on the off-chance that by the fifth or sixth attempt it will slip by unnoticed and the page deleted? That's something that's certainly been seen before on Wikipedia, the deletion of the 66-page WP:BJAODN archive on a sixth attempt being a prime example (the text is still around on bjaodn.org or one of Uncyclopedia's sites). I wouldn't have noticed the previous deletion attempt had you not pointed this out. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One it was never sent to AFD, it was prod'd. Two, it makes no difference how it ends up here, it still needs to show substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'm going to keep asking for sources no mater how many attempts to derail this debate are made. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What debate? This reads like a one-person monologue. The question of sources was addressed in 2009. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great show me the links to the coverage in multiple independent sources. Like I said going to keep asking for them no mater how many times you try to through this debate off course. Ridernyc (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what meatpuppets are (there is a rock band of this name I believe) but the request in the link seems to be perfectly legitimate to me since it is not recruiting votes of any kind but essentially asking whether anyone has any useful links that will help strength claims of verifiability/notability, which seems to be the main complaint here. The project's purpose is not about collecting lists of such things but instead to give its users special capabilities to do things - that is why they are being asked for some feedback to supply any such information (of importance to the Wiki entry) but otherwise not of central importance (to the project). When the Wiki entry was originally made back in 2009 there were no such references and there were righty complaints that it was inadequete for an entry (newbees to Wiki also need some time to get to learn and understand what is expected of contributions and improve the content with time) and after supplying what was consider to be quite good references (from well known and independent sources such as ATMEL and Freescale and a university publication, which are already/still in the list) it seemed that at least the minimum requirement was no longer in question. Many people have reported that they have found the Wiki entry useful (tendentially students as has been noted from experience) and therefore it is surprising that some 20 months later the existing references are no longer adequate, or the quantity is now considered too little (?) Some additional ones will be added as collected to improve the entry. If they are still not adequate according to present requirements it is understandable that the entry will be deleted - that would be correct if the case has been correctly reviewed and debated and judged to be so. It is hoped that the judging will be good and fair and entries are not deleted as a consequence any individual's missions to do so - personally I still believe that, even if not the best and most neutral of entries, it serves a purpose 'essentially' in harmony with the goals of Wikipedia - documenting the history and state of the project as well as making people aware of the project community. (mjbcswitzerland) 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful. We still need the sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the new ones? Including paper from "Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2011 IEEE 16th Conference". How many more are needed? Please help constructively and not sarcastically. Efforts are being made. (mjbcswitzerland) 01:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see efforts being made I see long winded explanations of how this should not need to prove notability. As far as what's been added I see one paper that is unviewable behind a paywall, and a blog. The blog seems far from reliable and also seems to not be totally independent of the subject. So we have a total of one source if we count the paper behind the paywall. Ridernyc (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I though this was a discussion where one could express an opinion. Can't do much about the wall - one can contact IEEE or the researchers directly if needed. I had counted a couple more papers already (eg the ATMEL one is not bad in my opinion). Out of interest (to see how the others do it better) I checked some pages on the list of operating systems here - List of real-time operating systems - it is interesting that many have no references to independent references at all - should these all be deleted? May post some more as they come in but will say goodbye myself since had my say. Maybe some others are interested in discussing more but have the feeling that the entry's fate has more or less been sealed whatever turns up. So RIP - tell me if I need to do the honours of deleting the page ;-) (mjbcswitzerland) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad the effort spent to delete articles isn't the same amount spent to improve the same articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debate about how an article meets criteria is welcome. Debate about how an article should not have to meet criteria is less welcome. As far the personal attack above. I would love to see time spent on improving this article instead of long winded arguments about how it should not need to be improved to satisfy inclusion criteria. It's simple as I have said several times, simply provide independent sources that establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no personal attack here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New ones added: - used in payment terminals in every post office in Switzerland and registered as Level 2 Contact Approved Application Kernel at EMVCo Smart card / EMV / Payment card industry.
Used in the 40 chain hoist controllers controlling the 52 ton video screen constructed for the U2 360° Tour world tour [at time of writing the links don't prove this but the company involved has reported it and changes to their web content is being negotiated - this is the tough bit because they don't usually give information about the controllers, SW or even compilers used](mjbcswitzerland) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a note, per WP:PAYWALL, ..."The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Paywalled sources qualify as valid regarding their use to establish topic notability and in articles to verify information, if they are published by reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info When making final decision please don't forget to first check out the updated state of notability references in the article which is being worked on to improve the main complaint (there are more important ones now and some more may follow after clearing up some details about copyright/public ___domain issues). Also please don't dismiss, in particular, the ATMEL RUM application as seems to be the case to now since it shows that a major semi-conductor manufacturer has independently chosen this project platform to base its demonstration of its solution for Smart meter - one of the main application areas for RUM/6LoWPAN, which one shouldn't forget is foreseen as a muli-billion dollar industry; this makes this reference particulary significant! mjbcswitzerland (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.193.177 (talk) [reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:IAR, unless there's a valid merge candidate. Deletion will prevent editors from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. The OS has received some coverage but I've not found much in the way of reliable sources. [2][3][4][5] -- Trevj (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the notability of the subject, but I'm rather bemused by the claim that deletion of this article would prevent editors from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. That's an extraordinary claim for an article on a little-known operating system. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People have taken note of it and others may therefore want to look it up. If it's not notable, it may be a merge candidate. But as there seems to be no obvious place to merge it to, where does the content belong and how can coverage of the topic be improved? -- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info I have received a copy of the following reference that is behind a pay wall[6]. It is copyrighted by IEEE but the article is fully independent and reports intensively on the characteristic of the OS that allowed the operation in question (real-time Ethernet EtherNet/IP) to be demonstarted. If the review of this turns out to be a make-or-break input please contact so that a further copy can be organised (for review purposes only). ((talk)) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Colapeninsula. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 31 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UTasker&oldid=1088287417"