Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerto Signage


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerto Signage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails google test. I dream of horses (C) @ 01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @  01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (C) @  01:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me understand what `fails google test` means? There are a handful of non-concerto-owned links on the first page of web search results for "Concerto Signage". Google Scholar also brings up at least 2 journal entries which discuss Concerto. Bamnet (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep :I would assume I dream of horses is applying something along the lines of the "notability" test mentioned in Search_engine_test. A quick glance at the Google results reveal nothing amiss, though "Concerto" is word in regular use, and the results will need to be viewed with that in mind. Certainly, a diversity of sources (beyond a search for a common word) and an evaluation of the citations should be used in this determination.


 * Overall, Concerto Signage would seem no more or less notable than Dokuwiki or the plethora of other open-source software projects included in Wikipedia and I'm unable to find any grounds in the Notability guidelines for non-inclusion. The "orphan" tag would also appear not to apply here, as the page is linked from the RPI TV page as well as the Concerto (disambiguation) page (though that hardly counts).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable software, fails to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Most sources are either "forums" or the copany's. Others do not rise to the level of sigfificance.  See also the informative essay Notability (software).  IP editor 69.204.153.39 is incorrect, it is not guidelines for non-inclusion, it is guidelines for inclusion, and this topic does not meet those guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my sentence structure was a bit confused. I was simply saying that in reading the guidelines, I found none that seemed problematic in this case. But this is obviously a subjective process, and I certainly fall in the minority inclusionist camp, as I found the deletion of the list of signage systems to be over-the-top. As I alluded to earlier, it would be best if people with an interest in the open-source software area of Wikipedia take up this question within the context of the open-source software Wikipedia already lists, since notability standards vary widely by topic area (rare bird species tend not to get the best SEO treatment).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many things may be appropriately mentioned with citation in a broader article and do not require their own article. This I believe is one of them. It does not have very much coverage at all in indedependent reliable sources. Coverage in several different computer magazines is a good basic "rule of thumb" for software notability, but enough academic coverage (not usage) may also suffice. Beware of poor arguments such as Other stuff exists and those listed at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If this topic interests you, you might consider working on the Digital signage article which is not in the best of shape. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's one thing Wikipedia has a complete list of, it's endless arguments on both sides of deletionism/inclusionism. But I will say that if an encyclopedia deigns to have articles on a certain topic, a consistent standard (erring towards liberality) ought to be in effect, such that topics that made it in the initial "Wiki land rush" don't crowd out newer and equally relevant/notable topics in the area concerned (free/open-source software in this case). Incidentally, citing the Other stuff exists page itself: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged."


 * I would broadly agree with your notion of notability, but "computer magazines" would not be a sensible criterion; they're little more than informational advertising in 2015 and most of what they cover would not be in Wikipedia as it stands presently. Perhaps better would be to say publications (online or off) of an editorial or descriptive nature. I had briefly considered doing something with the Digital signage article, but it's little more than a lot of industry-specific pabulum trying to sell enterprise software. It really doesn't describe any digital signage systems at all, and is concerned with it in a conceptual sense exclusively.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * are you seriously stating that "computer magazines" should take precedence over academic source? This is backwards. Computer magazines can count as reliable sources for software, but that doesn't mean all other sources that are normally considered top-notch on Wikipedia stop counting. WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and WP:N certainly overrides any part of it that may seem to make notability of an article less attainable than under normal standards. LjL (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I was making the distinction between academic coverage as opposed to academic usage of the software. The second results in brief mentions in academic articles, rather than substantive coverage. I certainly do give substantive coverage precedence over mere mention, regardless of the other attributes of reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with coverage vs usage, but I was concerned with the wording that magazine coverage was a good rule of thumb while enough academic coverage may also suffice (my emphasis), as if implying that "enough" may not be enough when it comes to academic sources. LjL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No such intention. The verb "may" goes to both parts of the sentence hence the use of the word "also". The call is always a subjective one, see e.g. the Deletion review/Log/2015 October 6 of the Jacques Peretth article.  --Bejnar (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I'm afraid our discussion here has roamed well beyond the question at hand. There is no particular debate as to whether the article is in scope (WP:Wikipedia is not), verifiable (WP:Verifiability), or in possession of reliable sources (WP:Reliable Sources). The issue at hand is notability (WP:Notability). I've made some relativist arguments above as to why I see this as notable in the given category, but urge others to make their views known.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As no one else has jumped in, either to point out the hasty nature (~2 mins) of the nomination (ignoring WP:BEFORE) or answer the creator's simple question, I've done a little searching for sources: ACM: Concerto-Digital Signage on the Cheap, Design and Implementation of Scalable Multimedia Signage (Cited 3 times), 17 Slices Of Raspberry Pi For Digital Signage,Open Source Systems Applications (TCNJ), Independent thesis-Digital screen for appointments and employees, Digital Signage Systems (AALL Spectrum), Conducting a Digital Signage CONCERTO (Presentation given to Association of Independent Kentucky Colleges and Universities), Raspberry Pod: Concerto – open source digital signage..., and Tech At Last: Digital Signage Software. These are of course in addition to the already ample magazine and other published links the article itself offers.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - here's a paper about this software: - LjL (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed that Swatling article has been mentioned before, above, by IP editor 69.204.153.39, and is a step towards notability, unfortunately the rest that the IP editor mentioned did not contain substantive coverage of Concerto Signage, The second article Design and Implementation of Scalable Multimedia Signage did not mnetion Concerto Signage at all. The three sentences of Haynes's 17 Slices Of Raspberry Pi For Digital Signage did not add much. Open Source Systems Applications (TCNJ) simply cites Concerto once without dicussion. The Master's thesis at [Digital screen for appointments and employees added essentially nothing. Conducting a Digital Signage CONCERTO is an eight slide power point presentation with minimal content. Like Haynes, Digital Signage Systems (AALL Spectrum) simply lists it. Raspberry Pod: Concerto – open source digital signage... documents the release of two usage videos. Finally, Tech At Last: Digital Signage Software provides four sentences in a list of such software.  Altogether not very much.  The proper place for mention of Concerto Signage, if at all, is in the article on [[digital signage]]. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I had not noticed that link was already covered, but I did seem to notice that that list of sources given was more looks than substance (even though I personally lean towards inclusion). I guess at least by duplicating it I've made the one relevant source stand out more, which can't be bad. LjL (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for all of the above sources, but I think you may have overlooked the content of some because they are behind paywalls. I was able to secure a copy of the Swatling paper, but my limited Google Cache explorations on some of the others suggest that their non-abstract text seems to be more substantive than you suggest. I wouldn't want to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I believe it bears repeating that for a piece of web software to have any scholarly mention is remarkable, certainly more remarkable than the unspeakably bad digital signage article, whose sources are primarily industry ad literature. I must also reiterate the phenomenally bad faith with which this article was nominated -- by a serial deletionist 2 minutes after submission who declined the editor/creator even the most basic of courtesy during a now 2-week discussion. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I forgot about the paywall(s). And as I say, I do lean towards inclusionism, what with that third-party conference paper specifically about the software. LjL (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2015 (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.