Talk:WikipediaFS

Deletion
Apparently, from the fact that this talk page was deleted, this article was previously deleted -- reasons unknown. Since it was recreated, it was marked for deletion based on WP:WEB, even though it is not about a web site -- that was clearly wrong. Then it was marked for notability, despite there being nearly 13,000 google hits -- many of those aren't relevant because they are just Linux distro content lists, but among those hits were numerous reviews of the subject in on-line journals and similar sources. The criterion is "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Clearly, "reliable" here need not be exacting when the goal is merely to establish notability; just because WikipediaFS has never been mentioned in the NYT doesn't mean it's not notable. If this article isn't notable, then neither are a vast number of Wikipedia articles referring to far more esoteric subjects, not only in regard to computing but all of math, science, and many other areas. Please, before rushing to delete this article, let's show a bit of understanding of what it is about, and of what the WP policies are. And please provide your reasons that this article should be deleted here for discussion. -- Jibal (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:WEB is basically just a reformulation of WP:NOTE so I see no problem with that.
 * > "but among those hits were numerous reviews of the subject in on-line journals and similar sources"
 * The right thing to do is point out these articles in a 'references' section; in fact, this is exactly what WP:WEB and WP:NOTE tell you to do. Without any references I wouldn't consider this notable either (and yes I have actually tried this software). Also please take a look at WP:RS for what actually qualifies a reliable source; most Google results I got were rather trivial "this is cool"-style blog posts. In general, Google result counts are not taken very seriously.
 * > "If this article isn't notable, then neither are a vast number of Wikipedia articles referring to far more esoteric subjects"
 * This is absolutely correct, the notability guideline is not enforced very consistently for various reasons; please see WP:OSE.
 * -- intgr [talk] 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:WEB is not "basically just a reformulation of WP:NOTE", it is specifically about web sites, and thus has no bearing on this article, as I noted and as was noted by the editor who removed that bogus tag. Nor does WP:NOTE tell you to point out articles in a references section; that's a radical misconstrual of the nature of that guideline. Notability is not a matter of the content of the article, including the presence or absence of references, it is about the subject of the article, as WP:NOTE repeatedly states. And you seem to have ignored everything I said about reliability specifically in the context of determining notability, which is necessarily different from reliability as required for sources. -- Jibal (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * > "WP:WEB is not "basically just a reformulation of WP:NOTE", it is specifically about web sites, and thus has no bearing on this article"
 * The criteria is the same, but whatever. You'll note that the whole point of proposed deletions is to find out if there is any opposition to a delete. The deletion tag explicitly asks an editor to remove it if he does not agree. As you (or someone else) would have removed the tag regardless of which notability guideline it cites, it doesn't matter and there's no point in making a huge fuss about it. Even if the article was deleted, PRODded articles are restored on request at WP:DELREV.
 * > "Notability is not a matter of the content of the article, including the presence or absence of references"
 * One thing is a subject's notability, another thing is a request to establish that in the article.
 * > "Nor does WP:NOTE tell you to point out articles in a references section"
 * While the notability guideline has been trimmed since I last read it and it doesn't literally say that anymore, it does state this:
 * If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors [...]
 * And the notability tag says:
 * If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject.
 * As far as I can tell, all your confusion is caused by the fact that you didn't actually read what the tags say. This is why I don't bother enforcing notability anymore; people immediately interpret all maintenance tags as an attack against the article and don't think it through calmly; it's extremely time-consuming to consult every person individually like this. -- intgr [talk] 09:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal attack and arguing for the sake of it noted. You yourself quote "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself" -- sources exist and have been noted, thus notability has been established sufficient for removal of the tag. Go argue for the sake of arguing with someone else, I'm done. -- Jibal (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You ignored the *OR* part of that quote; my point is that the notability guideline does say that adding a "notability" tag is perfectly reasonable if there are not enough references to establish notability. I went out of my way to explain what's said in the guidelines and now you're claiming that I'm "arguing for the sake of it" and that I'm making personal attacks. -- intgr [talk] 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third-party disclaimers
If it needs to be pointed out that this isn't a Foundation project, just move it out of the Wikipedia namespace. Actually having it under the Wikipedia namespace is pretty wierd... 85.226.4.243 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where would it go? It's not notable enough for articlespace, and there's no point to putting it in userspace. The Wikipedia: namespace is perfectly sensible - there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia: about various tools and extensions. It's just that most of them are not named 'WikipediaFoo'; they don't have any branding/trademark/confusion issue. --Gwern (contribs) 14:18 9 May 2009 (GMT)

Wrong namespace
This article clearly does not belong in the project namespace. It is an article about a working open source product, but it seems like it was a personal issue why this was moved here. I would like to move this article back into the main namespace, but given the previous discussions it will probably create some heated debate. See for example Wikifs which is similar but based upon a system with a rather marginal interest. That article is in the main namespace, while this article is in the project namespace. It could be that there should be made a request to those involved in WikipediaFS to change the name of the product, but that is not a godd reason for either deleting the article or moving it into the project namespace. Jeblad (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)