Interchange_(software) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It was just noted by someone in our community (Interchange) that the Interchange page was deleted a couple of months ago. It appears to have gone two rounds of discussion and yet no one in our community was contacted or notified during this process so we did not get a chance to provide input into the discussion. The reasons for deletion was missing notability, no references from reliable sources and it was commented that, "couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability". Surely if our community had been contacted we could have provided a number of links to establish notability such as the following (not exhaustive): http://www.techrepublic.com/article/red-hat-suite-makes-e-commerce-easy/1031400 http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000121501406PSCYSW

Note that this has already been requested on the deleting admin's talk page and we were referred here. Pajamian ( talk) 08:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - of the references supplied, the former looks like a press release, and hence not an independent source. The second source has two paragraphs that briefly talk about it. All said and done though, that doesn't really in my view amount to the significant coverage required in independent and reliable sources to establish notability. -- Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
  • The first actually reads like a press release for Red Hat, not Interchange, to me. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• A more exhaustive list of sources for us to evaluate would go a long way toward helping your case. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored history for diiscussion DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• Of the two already mentioned one was an article in Linuxtoday, and one an article in techrepublic, both of them are respected independant publications. Regardless of the content they do establish notoriety. Here are some more: http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000092501006PRRH http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000112201306PSCYSW http://www.dmnews.com/akopia-expands-site-building-services/article/69338/ http://investors.redhat.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=356094 http://www.amazon.com/TRAINING-INTERCHANGE-E-COMMERCE-PLATFORM-Marketing/dp/B0008I0ABI http://mozillaquest.com/Linux/RedHat_E-Commerce_released_story-01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajamian ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  "Regardless of the content they do establish notoriety" - nope you can't ignore the content as to if they establish notability. The ones you've listed in this lot include a couple of press releases, now I can setup some company, website, whatever and issue press releases, does that mean anyone actually cares about my company/website/whatever? Of course not. There are some reviews in there, which may help though they don't really seem to be in any indepth coverage and seem fairly old (which for such a product doesn't suggest that great an interest and no enduring interest if that's all there is). The final one includes large quotes of a press release, and interview about the project, I'd consider this to be worth little more than a press release, to my mind it's basically promotional not independent interest. Are there any which are provide in depth coverage of the product which are independent (i.e. no press releases, large quotes from interviews etc.) Are there any sources which show enduring interest in the project? -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  Notability is not temporary, there should be no need to show enduring interest. It seems reasonable to conclude that the software had significant coverage from multiple, independent source although that is now hard to demonstrate because many of those publications are defunct. In addition, the WP article doesn't meet any of the common pitfalls for non-notability. The software has clearly been around a long time and there is no real basis to remove the article, ie "for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". Here's a link from (yuck) SCO which traces this software back to 1995 http://www.sco.com/skunkware/ecom/minivend/docindex/30.00.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.html#ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . It's just old and not commonly discussed in trade magazines anymore - you could say the same thing about The Howdy Doody Show or a Lockheed L-1049 aircraft. Eli lilly ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  Here's a revision log for the software showing changes as recent as 3 days ago and going back more than a decade (I got tired of pressing "prev" around 2002 I'm not sure how much further it goes) http://git.icdevgroup.org/?p=interchange.git;a=shortlog Eli lilly ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  (Anyone wondering about the Amazon link this is a 2-page edocument and given the publisher, title seems to be the same as http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RED+HAT+DEBUTS+TRAINING+ON+INTERCHANGE+E-COMMERCE+PLATFORM.-a075642562 which looks to be another press release -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)) reply

• I oppose deletion. (--Jon Jensen) Interchange (and Minivend, which it was called before its name change in 2000) is notable for having been the most long-lived and prominently used Perl ecommerce system and it is now in maintenance mode at age 17. The enduring interest may well be historical since most users of Interchange have been using it for years already, but lack of recent press hype does not mean its historical interest is gone. I have print copies of reviews from the 2000-2002 era which I can scan and post if that would be helpful. More examples of reviews and thoughtful feedback by people not directly involved with the project:
  • http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=3690
  • http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3301
  • http://mark.stosberg.com/Tech/interchange/review.html
  • http://www.linuxtoday.com/security/2000071001604SCSW
  • and a 1999 presentation by a user who years later became the project lead: http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~linux/linuxtag99/webshops_mit_minivend.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.180.134 ( talk) 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The first couple of these look better than the previous things we've had. Of the others, the third I'm not convinced would be considered a particularly reliable source, the fourth is obviously very brief and I can't evaluate the nature of the fuller article behind it. I personally wouldn't give much weight to the presentation as a reliable source either. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment As a community member (--Sam Batschelet) and longtime user I would just like to point out a few sites powered by Interchange so that it's relevance can be shown. Backcountry.com arguably one of the largest outdoors/sporting goods website in the US is powered by Interchange. Simmsfishing.com the largest manufacturer of sportswear and outerwear targeting the fishing market is powered by Interchange. I agree that this software isn't marketed heavily or at all but a major upgrade to the project is planned for next year as Interchange version 6.0 is launched. This version of Interchange will put it inline with competitors such as Magento. Based on the evolving Perl platform Dancer this next step will be huge for our community. This software is used by many large web consulting companies such as endpoint.com. Again just because the software is not published about it silently powers thousands of websites and is the foundation for many private consultants work. I have attached a few references. Please reconsider the deletion. Hexfusion ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

yapc europe 2008 yapc europe 2008 linuxtag 2009 Interchange Website Hall of Fame Linuxia blog Interchange Powered Sites Sandro Groganz LinuxTag 2008 Review IANA list Minivend Port 7786 Cpanel support for Interchange Homeland Security Report Hexfusion ( talk)

Hexfusion ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexfusion ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment I notice this external canvassing to gain support for this. Please do not just come to try and vote, nor to just add opinion that the software is great and used by 1000s and really should be here - such comments hold little weight and may in fact be counterproductive in obscuring any real points being made relative to the real wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has basic inclusion standards to try and work out what the world at large is interested in, the basic principal being that if they are, then reliable sources totally independent of the product will have decided to write about it in a good level of detail. Each of the bits on this have definitions, i.e. what constitutes a reliable source. Personal opinion, vague waves towards how many users are believed to use this don't cut it. Press releases demonstrate nothing, and superficial run of the mill coverage says little about the worlds overall interest in the product. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Please note this post to the same thread, where I explicitly asked our community members to keep the signal to noise ratio up and provide constructive comments to the deletion review. It is not our intention to overwhelm the review process, but to simply give our community the opportunity to participate, something that was not done in either of the first two discussions over removal. These are community members who have used Interchange for years and know beyond any doubt that it has had a significant impact on e-commerce over the past 15-odd years and continues to have major impact today. To try to tell us that it lacks notability is laughable and well, we will speak up if given the chance. Pajamian ( talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment With all due respect why can we not notify our community members that the wikipedia article is being deleted and to please give support. Although you maybe frustrated with this process you are strongly underestimating the presence of this software on the web.... Hexfusion ( talk) 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  There are a few reasons. As I say people have a habit of just piling in and chucking out votes, these can obscure more significant points and can be counterproductive. Also if a whole ruck of people turned up at your project for a brief "10 minute" period, and without trying to understand the project etc. tried to vote for features/direction they wanted, how much weight would you give to them? Also see WP:CANVAS. Regarding the presence of the software on the web, that's exactly the point I've tried to make, we have guides as to what makes something notable and vague waves to some perceived big number is not one of the criteria, if having a large installed base makes something notable, then why isn't anyone else writing about it? -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• In my opinion in house developers take this software highly modify it then keep it as a "trade secret". Because of it's complicated nature I think many users have overlooked it in favor of quich and easy PHP solutions. But you will find flavors of Interchange used by developers and rebranded example http://www.infogears.com/cgi-bin/infogears/market_ecommerce.html. These guys build and host the site for simmsfishing.com and have modified a version of Interchange and rebranded it as "InfoBench E-Business Platform". So in this case this developer maybe powering many sites with Interchange without marketing it as Interchange. For this and other reasons I believe the impact of Interchange is vastly larger than appears. Hexfusion ( talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Thank you for posting the reliable source and notability guidelines. I think it is clear that some unwarranted dismissal of this page's notability was used earlier. WP:N says that "Notability is not temporary". That's important because everyone involved with Minivend/Interchange is aware that it was more frequently written about in the press 10 years ago than now, but that does not mean it is not noteworthy. At the very least I would say it has historical noteworthiness. I agree that press releases do not by themselves establish notability. Reviews do, though. The lack of peer-reviewed published print articles should not surprise, since such things are very rare about software such as this which is backed by no company, and is quietly used behind the scenes on servers, not in large visible deployments that lots of people talk about. In case someone thinks this is somehow about self-aggrandizement of the project participants, I will just say that for me the page was most useful to point outsiders to so they could learn about Interchange when they hadn't heard about it, because its own site assumed too much domain knowledge. That's what I find Wikipedia best for: teaching people about topics they're curious about in a fairhanded manner. And that's why I would like this page back. (--Jon Jensen) 207.183.180.134 ( talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  Yep, notability is not temporary. The problem becomes that with the internet there is much run of the mill coverage of things, if you get 10 very superficial reviews one month, then nothing ever again, then questioning if the interest was temporary is easy. If you get a few indepth reviews it suggest significant interest at that point in time that people invested the time in doing so. etc. Showing coverage over a period of time, particularly for an evolving product tends to demonstrate that even if the coverage is run of the mill there is actually real non-temporary interest. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Although somewhat mentioned in a list of links above, it's worth commenting that the software is assigned IANA port number 7786 [1] . IANA does not assign these trivially. Eli lilly ( talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment Here is a 1996 article from "Internet Retailer" where a large ecommerce retailer (BackCountryStore) is cited as using Interchange. [2]. The same retailer was also mentioned in the October 2003 print edition of Business 2.0 magazine [3]. According to the Business 2.0 article, BackCountryStore was the #2 outdoor gear retailer on the web, behind REI, and Interchange is mentioned as their ecommerce platform. Eli lilly ( talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment Regarding canvassing. A Nail (fastener) doesn't have very many articles written about it today (if any at all), but I am sure if you attempted to remove it from wikipedia, people would spread the word to get it reinstated. To imply canvassing would not be needed is to say that Wikipedia is an essential tool in order to know what a Nail (fastener) is, or how to use it. Wikipedia is not an essential source to know about or to use a Nail (fastener). Therefore, canvasing would be required. To suggest otherwise is only self diludance. Regarding notability not being temporary - it most suredly is. Do we find many articles written about the Nail (fastener) today? How about the scratch awl? We don't. How about Mason - the Perl server that Amazon used to build it's empire? Mason has the same amount written about it as does Interchange. Interchange probably has a larger user bas than Mason, but try removing the Mason page from Wikipedia and you won't be able to because of its very large single user. Because most of its (and Interchanges) users leverage it in an anonymous fashion, you don't get the Heroing of other newer products made in the last few years, especially since (the point of time that) Apple made the Heroing of products the new litmus test of existence. Regarding the "showing up for 10 minutes" comment. Again, Wikipedia is a non essential for the vast majority items on wikipedia. Why would I have any more interaction with wikipedia that what I as an individual deem necessary? As if all of a sudden I must use Wikipedia more if I want to have the ability to say "Yes, this exists". In the last decade I alone have allowed clients to make millions of dollars selling goods and touch millions of users with applications that run anonymously on Interchange. What has all the Scratch Awl users combined done in the last decade? I don't use wikipedia and am excited to have reinforced knowledge of this flawed process. To be bantering with someone who opens retorts with "yep" and "nope" - priceless. You may wish to ignore my retort as being off topic, but I am only refuting points 62.254.139.60 chose to bring into this conversation in order to counter the valid points of others. Gishnetwork ( talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  I think you've succesfully managed to demonstrate all my points, thank you. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to keep There has been a large number of sources provided now to establish notability and while not all of them individually meet the criterion as such, a significant number of them do. Of the ones that do not, the sheer number of these sources should add weight to the notabilty of Interchange. Note that recent or current publication is *not* a requirement of notability and while Interchange has entered maintenance mode it is still quite relevant in today's e-commerce industry. I also think that regardless of the actual sources cited the relevance and notability if Interchange is established now. The deletion was made in error, let's fix it. Pajamian ( talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Look, folks, Wikipedia isn't your webhost. You're not entitled to put an article here. You have freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech doesn't include the right to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall (specifically it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation) and content only gets included if it meets their strict rules, as interpreted by this forum. Being angry and outraged with us won't help you; in fact it's more likely to keep this material deleted, because we see plenty of angry and outraged people and they aren't easy to work with. Saying that there are a lot of sources will not help you. The only thing that will help you at this point is evidence. For example:

  (a) Providing links to independent, reliable sources; or

  (b) Providing references to sources that are offline. You can cite print magazines by ISSN number, date and page number (if the magazine doesn't have an ISSN number it's unlikely to convince Wikipedians). You can cite books by ISBN number and page number.

  Good sources are independent, reliable and have enough to say about the product to fill an actual article. There's no point providing a source that only gives a passing mention of the subject, because we shouldn't put something in an article unless it's sourced.

  Having said all that, this discussion has included sources and I've reviewed them. I'm somewhat taken with this source and this one, and based on those two I think there probably is the potential for a short article with this title.

  Technically, the outcome of this DRV should be endorse because there was a consensus to delete at the deletion discussion and it was closed in accordance with our rules. I'm inclined to allow creation of a new article in its place based on the new sources provided during this discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply

  • Would it be ok to instead temporarily restore the article and then add in the new sources? Pajamian ( talk) 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I don't object to that. Changing my !vote: let's Userfy to Pajamian and then close this discussion. Pajamian and anyone who wants to help him can add the sources, remove any unsourced content that remains, and create a satisfactory Wikipedia article without any time pressure. Once that's done, however long it takes, he can come back to Deletion Review and we can move the draft back to mainspace for him.— S Marshall T/ C 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
      • That sounds good to me. Pajamian ( talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
• Just for the record, these articles contain passing mentions of Interchange in use by Backcountry.com, a large online retailer. I don't think they're terribly meaningful for this discussion, but they're from 2006-2007, later than many other references that have been cited and I wanted to note them for anyone interested. 207.183.180.134 ( talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply
  • http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070101/technology-software.html
  • http://archive09.linux.com/feature/53628?theme=print
  • http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gTG_SDzI-EUJ:ns1.itcprojects.com/news_november06_216.php+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which is basically the same as http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P82oTeTJou4J:www.opensparc.net/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D1330+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  • http://business.highbeam.com/435689/article-1G1-146488106/case-study-backcountry-bets-shop-open-source
• Endorse deletion "because nobody told us" is not a valid policy-based argument to overturn. 2 discussions, insufficient notability. Indeed, if advised of the deletion vote we would have had even more inadmissible, WP:COI !votes. The consensus to delete was clearly policy-based, and appears to remain as such ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply