- 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. So Why 07:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
ZoneMinder
- ZoneMinder ( | 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 piece of software. No independent sources, and a search for them doesn't reveal any either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Linux Format magazine (issue 110, October 2008, p. 112) has full page tutorial about this application, there are passing mentions in other issues. I will look for online sources later. Pavlor ( talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Online sources: [1] (infoworld.com), [2] (heise.de; short news), [3] (online version of the big article in LinuxUser magazine), [4] (online version of the article in Linux-Magazin magazine). Pavlor ( talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor ( talk) 08:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- So
go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep".
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend.
Pavlor (
talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per
WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles.
North America
1000 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That might be what the book of rules say, but on a pragmatic basis if people supply trivial passing mentions in sources, without bolstering the article, you end up with an AfD closing as "no consensus" with an article that still looks rubbish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per
WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles.
North America
1000 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend.
Pavlor (
talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- So
go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep".
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not significant enough to adhere Wiki standards. Light2021 ( talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete: I found this book source, but that is certainly not enough and might not even be much of anything. SL93 ( talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Wikipedia. What about the sources I posted above?
Pavlor (
talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources.
SL93 (
talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here.
Light2021 (
talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? My keep isn't even based on the book source at all. Look at the sources provided further up.
SL93 (
talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- All the sources mentioned isn't notable as per wiki standards. All article has one para to write about? what we are creating here? Encyclopedia or directory. If we have to use such sources as notable, we would be creating articles filled with with spam. Check this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 ( talk) 04:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? My keep isn't even based on the book source at all. Look at the sources provided further up.
SL93 (
talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here.
Light2021 (
talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources.
SL93 (
talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Wikipedia. What about the sources I posted above?
Pavlor (
talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. So Why 07:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
ZoneMinder
- ZoneMinder ( | 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 piece of software. No independent sources, and a search for them doesn't reveal any either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Linux Format magazine (issue 110, October 2008, p. 112) has full page tutorial about this application, there are passing mentions in other issues. I will look for online sources later. Pavlor ( talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines.
Pavlor (
talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Online sources: [1] (infoworld.com), [2] (heise.de; short news), [3] (online version of the big article in LinuxUser magazine), [4] (online version of the article in Linux-Magazin magazine). Pavlor ( talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor ( talk) 08:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- So
go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep".
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend.
Pavlor (
talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per
WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles.
North America
1000 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That might be what the book of rules say, but on a pragmatic basis if people supply trivial passing mentions in sources, without bolstering the article, you end up with an AfD closing as "no consensus" with an article that still looks rubbish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per
WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles.
North America
1000 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend.
Pavlor (
talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- So
go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep".
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not significant enough to adhere Wiki standards. Light2021 ( talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete: I found this book source, but that is certainly not enough and might not even be much of anything. SL93 ( talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Wikipedia. What about the sources I posted above?
Pavlor (
talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources.
SL93 (
talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here.
Light2021 (
talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? My keep isn't even based on the book source at all. Look at the sources provided further up.
SL93 (
talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- All the sources mentioned isn't notable as per wiki standards. All article has one para to write about? what we are creating here? Encyclopedia or directory. If we have to use such sources as notable, we would be creating articles filled with with spam. Check this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed Light2021 ( talk) 04:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Excuse me? My keep isn't even based on the book source at all. Look at the sources provided further up.
SL93 (
talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here.
Light2021 (
talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources.
SL93 (
talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Wikipedia. What about the sources I posted above?
Pavlor (
talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.