Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Habari
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

article deleted three times, already. the secondary sources are not reliable sources as required by WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE nor do the secondary sources or anything in the article do anything to establish notability, as per WP:N. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SourceForge qualifies as a reliable source. I also believe that being a finalist in the 2008 Source Forge Community Choice Awards would meet the notability requirement as well as the coverage in Smashing Magazine Morydd (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smashing Magazine... so notable a publication that it doesn't even have a wikipedia article. And being a finalist in some sorceforge award... if that were notable then why aren't there other reliable sources discussing it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article quality is quite good, and the subject does have some notability (though granted last month's project of the month, Enomalism, is essentially a dead project, and still vaporware after 5 years, so it's questionable as to whether they are a reliable source). WikiScrubber (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except Habari wasn't a project of the month. But even if it were, has that designation resulted in significant media coverage? If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. And even then, it still might not be good enough per WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM
 * I also dispute the claim that the quality is "quite good". The features section just about violates WP:TRIVIA as written. The Release History section could stay, since it's in the featured article Mozilla Firefox, but not even Mozilla Firefox's article discusses every minor release (eg. 2.0.0.0 through 2.0.0.16 or whatever the latest version of 2.0 is). The Development model section seems to be a violation of WP:NOR and WP:VANITY, as well. Not that any of that is a reason for or against deletion, per WP:UGLY. Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've stripped down the article to a more reasonable size (in my opinion). I'll leave the notability discussions to others, but I think it's notable. tusho (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The external sources sufficiently establish notability. In fact, these sources are better than most of the projects linked to from Blogging software. Bjohnson00 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These sources are better than most of the projects linked to from Blogging software. Totally irrelevant. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Besides, were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion. Or are you gong to arbitrarily set the bar so high that all articles must simultaneously be nominated for deletion for any to be deleted? That is, of course, insane Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS states, in reference to the definition of a Reliable Source, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, and NBC, are not focused on reporting on Open Source software or blogging software, whereas SourceForge and Linux.com are. Additionally, there was no discussion, or objection when the notability tag was removed nearly 6 months ago. Obviously, I support keeping the page, but as a member of the PMC for Habari, my POV is heavily biased. Morydd (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you don't need to be focused on reporting on open source software to have articles on it. see, for instance,   for Linux, Apache, and Firefox, respectively. sourceforge isn't a news site and even if it were, it's irrelevant. take a look at the name. 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards. it's a poll. it's the complete antithesis of WP:RS. linux.com is somewhat reliable, but they're not even entirely unbiased, themselves, given that they are owned by the same company that owns sourceforge.net. And even if they were, that's just one reliable source. one is wholly insufficient. if this were so notable, where are the other reliable sources?


 * here's more evidence of Habari's lack of notability. Special:WhatLinksHere/Habari. if Habari is so notable, why is it not notable enough to be mentioned in any other articles other than just link mills like List of content management systems and Weblog software? Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Academy Awards are also a poll. SourceForge is one of the largest repositories of open source code on the internet, and the people being polled for such an award are arguably the people most familiar with Open Source Software. I fail to see what linux.com and SourceForge being owned by the same company has to do with any sort of bias towards Habari. And your arguments based on Smashing Magazine's lack of an entry and the lack of links to Habari's page could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability. Morydd (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the people being polled for such an award are arguably the people most familiar with Open Source Software. Nice WP:NOR violation. In any event, the Academy Awards are notable because get significant coverage in reliable independant sources whereas the sourceforge.net awards do not (and even if they did, remember that this project didn't win an award - all it got was a nomination).


 * And your arguments based on Smashing Magazine's lack of an entry and the lack of links to Habari's page could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability.. The burden isn't on me to prove Habari's notability - it's on you. You feel Habari is notable enough to be linked to from other pages? Then be bold and update wikipedia. As is, your proposal is absurd and could be used as a justification to keep all pages. Why not create a wikipedia article on one of my two big toes? After all, the "lack of links to [my big toe's page] could be equally interpreted as information that is missing from Wikipedia rather than proof of lack of notability.". Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Misterdiscreet: You claim "were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion" yet, you've now made the time to respond to this particular discussion 6 times, and are, thus far, the only person who feels strongly enough about this to respond at all. As for my claim that the people creating open source software are the people familiar with it being Original Research, you are probably correct, and if this were an article, it should absolutely be deleted. However this is a debate on if the article about Habari warrants deletion. I'm presenting my opinion on the subject, as are you. As for the Academy Awards being notable because they receive media coverage is backwards. They receive coverage because they are notable. They are notable because they are the result of people who are (theoretically) experts on film are choosing the best work in the media that they are experts in. The about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", so the argument "it's not in wikipedia" is not valid. So it basically comes down to an issue as to whether the articles linked are qualify as Reliable Sources and if Habari is "notable". In the opinion of myself and everyone but you who has entered this debate, they are, and it is. If you have a personal animosity towards Habari or any of the people working on it or on its wikipedia article, that would cause you to make deleting this article more important to you than deleting any of the other articles you feel should be nominated for deletion, I'm sorry and I hope you're able to work those out. Morydd (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim "were time not an issue, I'd nominate them all for deletion" yet, you've now made the time to respond to this particular discussion 6 times, and are, thus far, the only person who feels strongly enough about this to respond at all.. If there was a point in all that, I've missed it. Oh - and by the way, you are another person who feels strongly enough to respond to at all. What do you think I've been doing this whole time? Talking to myself?


 * And as for my not deleting other articles... how much free time do you think I have? Deleting other articles takes time. Subsequently defending my position takes time. I don't have the time to do another simultaneous AfD as time consuming as this one. And what if I did do another one? What's to stop you from saying the same exact thing? After all, what's one more AfD to me? I do two AfD's, you'll complain that I'm doing three. I do three and you'll complain that I'm not doing four and so on and so fourth. Well, I'm sorry, Morydd, but I'm not going to do that.


 * Do you go around criticizing the Habari developers when they don't devote as much time to Habari as you think they should? If not, then it's exceptionally hypocritical to criticize me for those same reasons.


 * However this is a debate on if the article about Habari warrants deletion. I'm presenting my opinion on the subject, as are you. Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that WP:NOR violations are grounds to keep the article but that if they actually go into the article that they should be deleted? Absurd. You wouldn't be able to delete anything that way. Take the hypothetical article on one of my two large toes. The article, itself, may not establish notability, but you're suggesting that if it were nominated for deletion via an AfD that I could violate WP:NOR, say that my large toe defeated Stalin, and that we'd have to accept that prima facie because WP:NOR doesn't apply in AfD's? You, sir, are an idiot.


 * As for the Academy Awards being notable because they receive media coverage is backwards. They receive coverage because they are notable. They are notable because they are the result of people who are (theoretically) experts on film are choosing the best work in the media that they are experts in Actually, I'd say it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Does art reflect society or does it affect it? A little bit of both, actually. Same thing with the academy awards. Alleged experts wouldn't waste their time in the Academy Awards unless they were as widely covered as they are. Simultaneously, the Academy Awards wouldn't be as widely covered as they are without the involvement of these alleged experts. sourceforge.net has none. What is an "open source expert", anyway? The Linux devs and the Firefox devs, maybe, but those aren't the people participating in the sourceforge.net poll. Indeed, it's just end users like you or me. We're not notable so the sourceforge.net awards don't get coverage and notable people don't contribute due to lack of coverage - due to the fact that there are better things they can do with their time.


 * Are you seriously telling me that you think sourceforge.net's awards as notable as the Academy Awards?


 * The about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", so the argument "it's not in wikipedia" is not valid. You haven't been reading what I've been writing, have you? If there's an ommision, you can rectify it - you can Be Bold. Don't just do handwaiving, say "it is notable!", and leave it at that - show me that it's notable. The fact that you can't - the fact that you're instead opting to resort to these absurd arguments - only weakens your case.


 * In the opinion of myself and everyone but you who has entered this debate, they are, and it is. Argumentum ad populum, FTW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdiscreet (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (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.