Talk:Monitorix

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Mikaku (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The text is the same text that myself (Jordi Sanfeliu), as the author of Monitorix, placed in the official Monitorix web site.

So, it's indeed the third web site  who clearly copied the text from the official Monitorix web site. So, i don't see any reason why Wikipedia should protect the contents appeared in such third web site, and hence you shouldn't want to delete this article.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaku (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 July 2011
 * Hello, I've changed the deletion tag to reflect the original source blanked the page pending further investigation. I looked at your website, but I can't see anywhere on there that says the material (ie. the text, not the software) is licensed for reuse. You would need to either contact Wikimedia giving permission for the material to be reused in a way that is compatible with our license, or make a change on your website that licenses the material in a compatible way (cc-by-sa or GFDL) Please see Donating copyrighted materials for more information on how to get around this. Please also be aware though that there may be other issues with the article. It's not really the best idea to write Wikipedia articles about your own products - you have a clear conflict of interest with this, and it's extremely difficult to remain neutral in these situations. There's also the question of whether or not the software meets out notability guidelines for inclusion. At the moment, it's hard to tell from the article how Monitorix is notable, and there are no references to coverage in independent, reliable sources. Can you comment on this? -- Beloved Freak  13:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Belovedfreak,

Well, if you think that even changing the Monitorix official web site in order to reflect the ability to reuse its text couldn't be enough in certain situations, then i think that it would be better if i have the opportunity to reduce all the conflicting text in the Wikipedia's article.

So removing the conflicting text in the article and leaving only a small one-liner description would be the quickest way to close the case. Other people then would be able to continue and expand it in the future.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaku (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion. Changing the license on the website to comply with our license should solve the copyright problem. Of course, it may be easier for you just to rewrite it in your own words. However, there is still an issue with the notability guidelines. Could you have a read over Notability and see if there's anything you can add to the article to demonstrate notability? Otherwise, it may be deleted, even if the copyright problem is sorted. -- Beloved Freak  18:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be enough to have been referenced in the RRDtool article? --User:Mikaku —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately no, we can't say that something meets the notability guidelines just becuase it's referenced in another Wikipedia article. It would need to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. See Identifying reliable sources for more on this. Even if the source is reliable (which Wikipedia is not considered to be), it needs to be something more than just saying that Monitorix exists. -- Beloved Freak  09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just Googling a bit:  http://www.linux-magazine.com/Startpage/%28offset%29/10 (an article about a recent release) http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online (an article about a recent release) https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Monitorix (a wiki article to install Monitorix on Arch Linux) http://www.freshports.org/sysutils/monitorix/ (FreeBSD port of Monitorix) http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/151982?page=3 (an article about 4 monitoring tools) The Page Rank value for 'http://www.monitorix.org' is 5 from 10 possible points (not bad)  Is not this enough independent coverage from reliable sources? Mikaku (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. I haven't looked at those sources in any detail, and I'm not that famliar with the reliability of those sources. I'm quite busy offline today, but I will have a look later. What I suggest in the meantime is that you rewrite the article in your own words so that the copyright problem is no longer an issue. You can do this here. Then, that version can be approved and moved back to the main title. Try to make it clear why Monitorix is notable and add the sources you've listed above (bearing in mind Identifying reliable sources). Notability (web) may also be a relevant guideline here. I'll have a look later. I can't guarentee that it won't be deleted in the end, but this is probably the best step for you to take now.-- Beloved Freak  09:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've rewriten from scratch the article using other words and i've included a pair more of links from enough reliable sources (IMO). Please, take a look on it a let me know if this time it is acceptable. Many thanks Mikaku (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've left a note for an administrator to move the article, it may take a little time to be processed. The linux.com reference looks good, so the article's not in imminent danger of being deleted, although I can't guarantee it won't happen in the future. It could do with a bit more in the actual article to tell readers why it's noteworthy (Neutrally worded, of course.)-- Beloved Freak  19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand. Thanks a lot for your assistance and my apologies to waste your time.Mikaku (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more than a list
The Wikipedia page on Monitorix is very poor because it is nothing more than a list of features copied from the Monitorix web page.

Other Wikipedia web pages which are nothing more than a list have a "warning/attention" banner alerting that the page needs to be corrected.

This criticism of the Wikipedia page is in no way a comment on how good or how poor is the actual Monitorix software, and the author of the software should not have influence over the contents of the page since this would mean that the Wikipedia was not impartial but merely a page to promote the software.

Therefore it is imperative that the style of the page is changed and instead of being just a mere list, actually explains what the monitoring tool does, how well it does it, perhaps in comparison to other monitoring software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.240.244.56 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)