Jump to content

Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/UNetbootin

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

After more than 6 days of deliberation, this article shall be The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. .-- Tdxiang 06:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

UNetbootin[change]

UNetbootin (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

SL93 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: I found no notability for this software. I found how to guides in Google Books, but I don't think that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

Comment This RfD appears to be about clarifying the lowest limits ambit of Wikipedia:Notability --Horeki (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? I nominated this for deletion because it fails the notability guideline. SL93 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on a comment on his talk page I think he is under the impression that people with "minor notability" fail wp:not. Which is of course wrong because there aren't levels of notability on wikipedia. You are either notable or you are not. And that is entirely based on if you have enough coverage in reliable sources or not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Glass Half Full bw 1.JPG
Is the glass half empty or half full?
DJsasso -- I would have thought that decision-making by consensus is an example of fuzzy logic in action? In other words, is the glass half empty or half full?

Per Wikipedia:Consensus, We'll have to wait to see how this plays out -- which is, of course, the purpose of all wiki-discussion threads like this one. --Horeki (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are discussions about whether or not the sources needed for notability exist. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No, not "notable" vs. "fame". That is an unhelpful frame.

I would guess that more useful questions would be ones like these:

  1. Is UNetbootin suitable as an article in the context of our project? Yes.
  2. Is simple:UNetbootin likely to be consulted by our likely readers? Yes.
  3. Does it seem possible that this article will serve a practical purpose? Yes.
  4. What do we make of the corollary articles which presumably show that other wiki-projects consider this subject notable?
In my opinion, the answers to these kinds of questions push us towards approval. This article is suitable for our project

Please notice that there are now inline citations from a newspaper and a book. Together, these suggest a presumption. Additional research and good judgment helps us to evaluate this presumption. In terms of the current version of this article, the Keep is supported well enough. --Horeki (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again all of those questions you list don't matter when it comes to calculating notability. The only thing that matters is WP:N. Secondly the "book" you refer to is a textbook which is just a manual and doesn't show notability. There is no newspaper link as far as I can tell unless you are referring to the blog style post. We need third party in depth articles or books that critically evaluate the software, this is how notability is gained. Thirdly for the other wiki articles see en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Precisely, we are on the same page, but we appear to draw different conclusions from reading it.

At en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the phrase which sums it up is "Inherent notability"; and this is demonstrated by changes made after this article became an RfD discussion.

Is it not reasonable to recognize that a "presumption" of notability is suggested by a Google books search here and a Google news search here? A number of questions led to an investment of time in research. IMO, Any uncertainty was objectively resolved when I discovered that Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Gentoo Linux, and others publish the proof of notability in their official repositories.

Also, please note that en:Handelsblatt is a newspaper; and the article which is cited in UNetbootin was found in a Google news search. The practical usefulness of this article is highlighted when UNetbootin is mentioned an article about the consequences of the en:Stuxnet and en:Flame (malware) -- see here.

"Fundamental" is a near synonym for "inherent notability"; and UNetbootin software is included in Security+ Guide to Network Security Fundamentals. --Horeki (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I will say keep, but look to expand the article, because I believe articles that short in general are hardly wiki-worthy. Yottie =talk= 14:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.nynox.solutions/index.php?title=Project:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2012/UNetbootin&oldid=141795"