Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARIX


 * 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ARIX

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no independent coverage, possibly too soon but there is no indication this meets any inclusion criteria at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete — The sourcing is no where close to what we would consider standard & a google search doesn’t turn up anything salient to substantiate/prove their notability. Celestina007 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article satisfies wikipedia's golden rule(s).
 * Per deletion policy, Editing should be used to improve an article, rather than deleting a page;


 * As Nathan2055 has done by including improvement request template.


 * Articles on nearly every Internet Exchange are commonplace on Wikipedia. Worlds first Internet Exchange dedicated to Amateur Radio carries notability.


 * With many verifiable reliable independent secondary, and primary sources cited in article, it passes the reliable and verifiable sources measure.


 * Per Guidelines, Worthiness of an article doesn't depend on popularity, such as having high google ranking.
 * If ARIX acronym doesn't hold the google gold standard, perhaps it would be best to change the title from the ARIX acronym to Amateur Radio Internet Exchange to pull more search results. It will also provide disambiguation to article.


 * Internet Exchanges are a fairly dry subject, they are generally free or non-profit with neutral connectivity, so there is no promotional motivation, as can be seen on 50+ internet exchange article postings. Internet exchange articles reference location, size and Name, with little other information. These references are often single point sources such as site webpage and can include reference databases that display exchange accessibility, exchange's Autonomous System number (ASN), member size and sometimes IP addresses allocation from ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers), or in this case AMPR.


 * With deletion of this article, 50+ other Internet Exchange articles going back two decades should also be deleted based on same criterion.


 * ARIX is not an orphan article and is referenced elsewhere on wikipedia. Additional write-ups to be posted for un-orphaning a few other Internet Exchange references on wikipedia.


 * Original information used referencing the History of ARIX is no longer posted online, with information only available as physical published papers; History section should be removed. Airgapped  (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting policy here isn't going to help. There are some things that just cannot be improved because sources simply do not exist. That is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ?? are you saying policy or guidelines isn't what we follow, then what is used. Should all the other Internet Exchanges also be deleted on this principle. ? Airgapped  (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying your selective use of a policy that isn't relevant here isn't helpful. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Most Exchanges started out as a one liner https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle_Internet_Exchange&oldid=174962788


 * The Measure of references and notability removed with alteration of Title and addition of its webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle_Internet_Exchange&oldid=174984953


 * This article has multiple sources. Please help me understand.  There are at least 20 more article entries for other Internet Exchange That follow this criterion.  Are all to be deleted?
 * Looking at revision history, looks like this article has started gaining interest.   Airgapped  (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:42. This article has 0 independent sources and nothing remotely close to being coverage, . Praxidicae (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: Barely found anything about it. Sources in the article are primary. Search results return news about Arix Bioscience instead. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few web sites that were used in wiki article, and available on subject:
 * Comment -- Looks like the two delete votes, use ARIX as only search method. I’d first suggest moving the title to something more appropriate, like “Amateur Radio Internet Exchange” then ask for more input before quiting.

Primary Source:
 * https://arix.dev/
 * https://arix.dev/sponsors
 * https://natesales.net/network
 * https://github.com/arixexchange

Secondary Sources:
 * https://whois.ipip.net/ix/
 * https://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS44977&view=47192
 * https://bgpview.io/ix/747
 * hubpages.com /technology/an_Exchange_for_You
 * https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service
 * https://www.ampr.org/wp-content/uploads/brieflook.pdf
 * https://thenamesdictionary.com/name-meanings/arix/name-meaning-of-arix
 * https://whois.ipinsight.io/AS47192
 * https://Peeringdb.com/net/22395

Trivial Informational sources:
 * https://portal.ampr.org/networks.php
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size
 * http://www.he.net/peering
 * https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KJ7DMC
 * https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=N7ARX

As noted, much less source information is used on most every other Internet Exchanges when articles were created. If this information is insufficient to keep it, even with an improvement request template, then roll it back to draft. It’s a bit strange that at least 20 other Internet Exchanges were approved solely on primary source of website.

Airgapped (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * -Regarding 's vote by using a google search; I would invite you to google "SIX" but instead of the Seattle Internet Exchange, which is one of the largest IXs on the US west coast. You (or at least I) get SIX, The musical by Lucy Moss and Toby Marlow. Simply the main result from google is not what should be the entirety of a AfD argument.


 * -Regarding 's counter arguments; There are secondary sources. See the Peeringdb page mentioned by above. Internet Exchanges do not have the same wide secondary sources that would exist for a person of noteworthiness to be on Wikipedia. Since Internet exchanges are only noteworthy to a smaller sect of network engineers. If you believe that a topic must have secondary sources, that would cut down many niche pages on obscure fields. And if we continue down the rabbit hole of required sources on smaller topics we would then end up in a place where we are no longer an open community driven repository of information on nearly every topic that mankind has created and turn into a encyclopaedia publisher.


 * -Regarding 's vote, see the above on the niche argument I mentioned in my response to and my response to.


 * -Regarding 's vote and counter arguments; whilst I do not agree with outright quoting of policy, you do make some good arguments. I don't believe your giving yourself any favours with your general... (for lack of a better term) antagonism and strict application of policy. As quite a few policies can at time interfere with each other. But, being someone who is quite familiar with the field, I understand your position. And in my opinion as such, ARIX is a valid internet exchange and should be treated as such, including but not limited to being noteworthy enough for Wikipedia.


 * In summary, in my eyes there are bad arguments from both sides. But being familiar with the field, I feel it is noteworthy enough for a wikipedia article, This article was just made on the 11th. You gave it 11 days before starting an AfD. I've seen many a article with a stronger argument for deletion. Give it some time to grow, in 6 months, a year, If it's still like this; Then I would agree that maybe it should be deleted.


 * 01:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I found this article interesting and notable enough to clean uo the references, add a bunch of wikilinks and do a re-write for readabilty. This concept is well within the scope of network security and redundancy. It has been discussed at network conferences such as Defcon. To someone with a network background anything that happens on this big a chunk of spectrum is inherently notable, as is the mesh architechture, if I read this correctly. The article should be expanded, actually, but fer god's sake the thing was begun less than a month ago, and the sources are going to be in IEEE publications and trade magazines like Networking World, ie not dailies. Hurricane Electric is sufficiently notable that anything it is doing is notable, imho, and the 44 network is important enough --and notable enough for its own wikipedica--that anything that happens there is also notable. This is where I clear my throat and mention that we have articles on individual courtyards of the Louvre, each and every ghost town in Texas, and all of the episodes of Pinky and the Brain. I agree that if this network has petered out in six month or a year, it might be time to re-evaluate. However, in my opinion, network over radio is very notable and a novel implementation and new access point therefore is also, even this early in its life. Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being interesting is just WP:ILIKEIT. We need sources and the fact that you dislike some lower quality articles or find them vapid is a bad argument. There are exactly 0 independent sources here that have coverage. And as a counter to the massive walls of text above where the keep arguments argue that sources like this are reliable are not only completely and factually incorrect, but laughable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While yes, there are bad sources, but PeeringDB is as close to a definitive definition as you can get in the Network Engineering space. If you were only count secondary sources, many of the world's largest internet exchanges would not exist on Wikipedia and you would also be eliminating a bulk of the information on Wikipedia on AS Peering in the real world. The point of Wikipedia is to be a place which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. if you continue to hold this stance you then believe that a vast part of that knowledge should be eliminated. And at that point we are not the open realm of the sum of all knowledge, and become a Encyclopaedia publisher. 18:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, with notable topics, not a holding place for everything that has ever existed. That's what Google is for. You and the other two voters have yet to provide a single independent source that has actual coverage of ARIX. Focus on that instead of making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Two can play that game, stop making WP:UNENCYC arguments, your stance that it is WP:JNN shows complete disregard for the field of network engineering. Since I am not as an accomplished Wikipediean as yourself, I shall not continue to make myself look more like a fool. But your blantant disregard for the thought that topics may be so obsurce but reliable sickens me to the core as to why I became a Wikipediean in the first place. I have gotten into talkpage discussions with people, and make arguments similar to what your doing, however when I realized that a) they know more about the field and b) they could better gauge the appropriate usage of Wikipedia for that topic due to their knowledge in that field. I stepped aside. I am not a push over, I understand the importance on the selectiveness and reliability of Wikipedia. However no one can be knowledgeable in every area and be able to make a correct judgement on every topic. And it is my firm believe your way out of field on this one. 19:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're failing to make a cogent argument here. WP:V is a policy. Independent sources are not optional. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am rather insulted that I'm being dismissed here. I am saying that a novel implementation of the IP protocol is inherently more notable than a given episode of Pinkie and the Brain. The mesh architecture makes it notable in my opinion. Now, should or another of the more technical editors in this discussion explain to me that some of the other exchanges Alfie mentions also have this architecture, I might listen to him. I can't swear they don't. However, this deletion discussion so far to my mind only underlines the totally arbitrary nature of the current process. Why would we delete an article on this one exchange, but not the similarly-sourced pages for the others? Let's compare apples to apples. Ok, more conceivably people are interested in Pinkie and the Brain, but the fact that some random wikipedian finds something obscure does not not mean that it is. "Notable" does not require that the denizens of this page have heard of an article topic. As a long-time wikignome, I would like to mention that I have seen notability dicussions about the history of Goa, an expert on anthrax, and the Panama Papers. There is an unfortunate tendency for articles to get nominated for deletion by editors who do not understand them, or are put off by the unfamiliar. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Praxidicae asked for my opinion on this subject. As someone with both service provider networking experience and an amateur radio license, I can assess the RSes better than she can - but I concur with her. Honestly, this article is not well written and really needs a full rewrite to be anywhere near encyclopaedic (but that's not something for AFD.) I agree that there are very few RSes that establish notability per Wikipedia policy, and ultimately that's the benchmark her. ARIX is small, young hobby project by a couple of radio amateurs. It's not a notable IX (where DE-CIX, AMSIX, etc are) nor a particularly notable amateur radio project (like RACES, AMPRNet, etc). ARIX is a really cool project and if I could justify 44NET space, I'd probably want to peer too - a way back I used to work on a big distributed community IX in rural scotland, which allowed community ISPs in Scotland to interconnect with the wider world. It was good fun! Now I push fibre around for events networking and play with broadcast all day. Also fun :) -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, perhaps you did not catch that this is an AMPRNet spinoff. And no it's not terribly well written, but that is a different issue Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If wikilawyer we must, you are conflating verifiability and secondary sources. Secondary sources are a preferred proof of notability (although some deluded souls maintain that the sources must also be peer-reviewed), and yes, the sources must be reliable. If you actually look at the policy you are citing, you might notice that one of the most important traits is "not self-published". The FCC is not ARIX. They also must not be questionable. An official registration is pretty unquestionable when used to establish item descriptions in a table fer crying out loud. This is what we call a primary source and while secondary sources are considered preferable for purposes of establishing the notability of the page topic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an FCC database's web interface to verify an FCC registration. The concern with articles that rely on primary sources exclusively is that they might stray into original research. But if applied strictly, this policy leads to the elimination of every compilation and list on wikipedia. The danger with self-published sources is WP:PROMO. The idea is that of course the author thinks the book is great, but what did the New York Times have to say? I agree with this, but this is just not that kind of article. Or topic. It would be best if the people who want to keep these articles work in some discussion from secondary sources. But you also can't go on a rampage and decide to delete everything that relies on primary sources, or you would eliminate almost everything in science and technology, and I know for a fact that pretty much every article on French history, archaeology, law and jurisprudence would go out the window as well. All of these rely heavily on primary sources. TL;DR = its sources are verifiable. They are not questionable, and only a few are self-published. But if you are going to go after every press release of white paper on wikipedia, you simply do not understand the concept of balancing conflicting policies. ion Incidentally, you should not rely on Google results for notability. It's a start for a quick assessment, but you should remember that what you get back is highly influenced by your browser and browsing history, not to mention search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you appear to believe that sources must be online, or they cannot be used. This is erroneous. In fact, books are somewhat preferred, as immutable. This runs into trouble on technology topics, of course, but you are erring too far in the other direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:19, 31 October 2020 (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.