Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenIndiana


 * 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. Arguments based on WP:GNG being satisfied are strong. Whether this can or should be merged into the OpenSolaris article can continue on the article's talk page.  Jujutacular  talk 18:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OpenIndiana

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Fails notability per WP:ORG. This is an announcement of a new development project based on the cancellation of the OpenSolaris operating system. The announcement of this new project was made September 14, 2010. The premise is to inherit notability based on that of OpenSolaris. Statements are made that this new project is the continuation of OpenSolaris. Sounds like a possible change in the name and direction of the development team. If so, another option would be to merge OpenIndiana with OpenSolaris.

There is a lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Published works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not considered reliable. Considering the target audience of sources culled from the publications provided, the references are presented by professional industry media of limited interest and circulation. The publications have established an affiliated, direct interest in the subject and are therefore, not independent. Use of sources of this nature, does not establish or support notability. Accordingly, notability of OpenIndiana at this point, is not yet established independent of OpenSolaris. Cindamuse (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. The arguments made meant that if Wikipedia hosted an article about Wikipedia during the first month of operation, that article should have been deleted. They also try to imply that OpenIndiana is the same as OpenSolaris, ignoring the explanations on the OpenIndiana website which show how it is different. There is a lot of coverage in 'notable' sources, in fact even I've written about it, though I haven't added the link here. I'm really not certain why the article was put up for deletion, the reasons given make no sense, nor do the arguments. The article should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

-- Comment. OpenIndiana this is not a change of name for OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris was ostensibly a Sun Microsystems project that was closed by Oracle on Sun's acquisition. This left anyone using OpenSolaris in the lurch facing the choice between the devil and deep blue sea. Pay Oracle prohibitive license fees or use an unsupported OS. OpenIndiana is re-establishment of a new community based organisation to overcome betrayal of trust from an open source sponsor.
 * It is clear that individuals below have been led here due to a lot of off-wiki canvassing on Twitter, asking people to participate in this AfD in order to save the article. Added header. Cindamuse (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is balloney. I just went through the history list of this AfD debate and the user contributions of the users who have posted on this page. There is only one who wasn't posting before this debate started and that user has made perfectly reasonable and correct contributions to the debate. So now stop this! You were right that WP:COI claims in your direction don't do anybody any good in the debate, but the same goes for sour grapes from your side. I've already asked for an admin to close this debate because it's become pointless. If this manner of debate continues on this page, I'm going to ask to have the page locked pending closing. -- BenTels (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, honestly, you have been the most egregious with personal attacks in this discussion. Please watch your tone. The canvassing is clear on Twitter and reflected in this discussion. You can also run a google search and find quite a bit of other canvassing. Do your homework. You can also view the request here, where the project lead is requesting a Wikipedia page for OpenIndiana. Clearly, Wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes. Cindamuse (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who have I attacked personally? I am stating (correctly) that the debate is decaying into infighting, and concluding that we've passed the point where the debate can sensibly continue. I'm sure you can run all sorts google checks, but I didn't and won't (since I don't wish to participate in the infighting). Following your claim above I looked at who has been posting and their histories on Wikipedia. If there has been canvassing (I'm not going to look), I can find no serious trace of its effects in the debate history in the sense of an influx of people signing up just to participate. And therefore no basis for your hint/claim to the contrary. -- BenTels (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that I have been personally attacked by you. It is also clear that much of the infighting was instigated by you. Cindamuse (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I have no intention of launching a personal attack against anybody. However, I have enough experience both on the Dutch Wikipedia and working in industry to recognize when a meeting/debate is going sour and when you should pull the plug to prevent worse. On this page we have accusations of WP:COI, threats of bans and blocks and people suggesting that other people are joining Wikipedia just to sway the debate. In the meantime the actual debate regarding the issue has all but ceased, with an exception of two original content-based posts in (from memory) three days. We are factually not debating anymore. -- BenTels (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There have most certainly been accusations of a COI, but I see no threats of a block or ban, or any suggestions that people are joining Wikipedia to sway a debate. Why do you keep commenting? I thought you said this discussion was dead. Cindamuse (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (The above two contributions from Cindamuse together): No, I am not attacking you personally. Most certainly I am disagreeing with the reasoning behind two things you have done in regards to this page, but I am not attacking you personally. If you wish me to elaborate, please let me know on my talk page, as we should take this offline and not continue here. The same goes for anything more that is to be said about your claim that I have instigated anything. If you wish me to elaborate on the threats of a block or ban, or any suggestions that people are joining Wikipedia to sway a debate, please likewise on my talk page. Regarding this discussion was dead, that is not what I said and certainly not in the same meaning in which I said it (and I suspect you know that); if further elaboration on that is required, again, please let me know on my talk page. -- BenTels (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. I stand by my statements. Cindamuse (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. -- BenTels (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an important technology industry milestone. http://dlc.openindiana.org/tmp/slides.pdf

Already preliminary google shows: http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/09/openindiana.html http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6902-Openindiana.html http://www.osnews.com/story/23807/OpenIndiana_Officially_Announced http://unixmen.com/news-today/1165-project-openindiana-a-continuation-of-the-opensolaris-os-to-be-announced-next-week http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU4OA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesp (talk • contribs) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Comment (replacement vote below): There are some interesting points on the Talk:OpenIndiana page that are relevant here, made by User:Lewellyn. I'll summarize them to keep the discussion centralized:
 * On notability: "[OpenIndiana is] the second Illumos-based distro (afaik), and the first "from scratch" as SchilliX is formerly a distro based on the Sun trees. Being the first distro created solely for the Illumos codebase is surely notable, at least if MCC Interim Linux is."
 * On the formal basis of this deletion request: "And, it clearly does not fit the criteria for deletion. The article is NOT about an organisation, which could be eligible under the criteria, it is about a PROJECT, as is clearly stated."
 * In addition, Haynesp is correct: it is factually incorrect to say that OpenIndiana is a renaming of OpenSolaris. OpenIndiana is a project fork, not the same project rechristened. That is in fact the whole point of OpenIndiana, since OpenSolaris was summarily killed by Oracle.
 * Which brings me back to something that I said on the talk page to challenge the speedy deletion: it's a pointless act to delete the page. Sure, you can delete it today. But given the interest that already exists among Solaris developers (including former Sun and Oracle employees) and the fact that they already have downloads up, someone will just have to recreate the page a few days from now. Might as well leave it now and improve it. -- BenTels (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence of notability. Currently the only references are to openindiana.org and another brief announcement of the project, and to announcement of the discontinuation of OpenSolaris. We do not keep articles on the basis "it is not notable yet, but we think it will become notable at some time in the future". "Being the first distro created solely for the Illumos codebase is surely notable" may or may not be true in some senses of "notable" (that is a matter for individual judgement) but it is certainly not valid as far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned. BenTels says that the article is about a "project", not an organisation. It is perhaps debatable whether a "project" is an organisation, but that is in any case irrelevant, as either way there is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Correction: User:Lewellyn raised the point of project rather than organization, not I (fairness in attribution). He is correct, by the way: an open source project certainly involves a community, but it is more than a community alone. And, as he and and haynesp pointed out as well, the claim of a lack of notability is already questionable. In addition, I would like to submit for your consideration a new thought that has occurred to me while typing this contribution: notability is linked to its field. The Bertrand–Diquet–Puiseux theorem, for example, is considered notable for its notability among mathematicians (i.e within its field), not because it is a mainstay of conversation among the general public. OpenIndiana is a software project, but it is also an open source project and community, which was formed in the wake of a controversy over Oracle cutting off support for open development of Solaris. Within the context of open source, that alone makes it a notable project, subject and article. -- BenTels (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: With respect to frequent Wikipedia editors OpenIndiana is important to the community. Within hours of release download rate was 800Mbp (see twitter page). The significance of support goes beyond just a new OS in its own right but a transition from well funded closed source enterprise technologies, to open source, cloud ones. Pages on Wikipedia to promote this is entirely appropriate. Proposals by some open source communities to mute the voice of other others, not. Haynesp (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * WP:IMPORTANT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Neither is its value as a promotional tool. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1733342/open-indiana-aims-default-free-solaris-distribution

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/openindiana_launch/

http://www.sdtimes.com/FROM_THE_EDITORS_CONSULTING_THE_ORACLE/By_SD_TIMES_EDITORIAL_BOARD/About_ORACLE_and_SOLARIS/34636

http://www.infoworld.com/t/unix/illumos-aims-clone-dying-opensolaris-456

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenIndiana-statt-OpenSolaris-1079302.html

http://www.golem.de/1009/77997.html

http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/16165/opensolaris-ableger-openindiana-veroeffentlicht.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.157.5 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — 217.228.157.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: Oh, nice list. Thanks for the references; I've incorporated the nicest of them into the article! Not only that, but, given the depth of coverage in the first four of them, I'm going to suggest diplomatically that the notion of lacking notability has been overtaken by the times. -- BenTels (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those references simply verify that as a recent launch of a new project, the subject is too new to have established notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm sorry, but what you said here is just plain wrong. And leads me to believe that you didn't read any of those references (particularly the InfoWorld, SD Times and Register one, let alone any of the German or Dutch references, some of which are more in-depth than just the announcement). It also smacks a bit of changing the rules halfway through the game (from it's not notable from lack of coverage to it's not notable due to lots of coverage). There's a parallel discussion going on on the German site about the article there, where a number of people have made nasty remarks about the subject matter expertise of people calling the article not notable. I'm not going to do that here since I don't see the necessity, but given the interests you state on your user page, the comment above and the original comment in which you invoked WP:ORG, I am going to ask you a question of conscience (which means I don't expect you to publish the answer but I would like you to consider it for yourself). Let me start by painting you a picture. OpenIndiana is an open source project. One of the thousands started each year. One of the hundreds of thousands in existence. SourceForge, for example, hosts over 240.000 projects alone – most of which never get mentioned anywhere. Apache (a really big player in Java Enterprise OSS) hosts a couple of hundred, most of which never get mentioned anywhere (and again, they are a big and specialized player and have some really impressive stuff on offer). Even a vastly important project like Apache Tomcat didn't get international press coverage upon launch and new releases usually don't get coverage either (and Tomcat is probably the most widely used servlet container in the world). All of this is true &mdash; and yet, a startup announcement for a project that will release a clone product of a (by now) very small niche operating system got picked up by the international technical press. They all feel that the event is noteworthy, despite the fact that it is not a hot innovation in the technical sense (it's just OpenSolaris forked and the lord knows you could suffocate in all the Unix clones and forks available today). Hell, with those statistics OpenIndiana is notable simply for the coverage it got (but that's not the point). They know that OpenIndiana is notable in their gut, as does everybody with a software engineering background and an interest in OSS. And there's a reason for that: it has to do with the way Oracle is positioning itself in relation to the open source community and how it is treating the OSS projects it inherited from Sun. It has to do with Oracle's reputation vis-a-vis open source, with months of worry and uncertainty about what they were going to do with Java (for which Sun formed a very open community and on basis of which Oracle is now suing Google). It has to do with those same worries in the OpenSolaris community, followed by Oracle actually nixing OpenSolaris. And it has to do with the vague idea that if there is a fork in one area, there may be a fork in the other as well. It has to do with the idea that there may be a serious showdown between COTS software and OSS. That's why the announcement is noteworthy to everybody in the field and why OpenIndiana is notable, simply for its existence.  Now, I said I was going to ask you a question of conscience. And we're almost there, except for a few run-up questions (and please excuse me if it sounds like I'm getting nasty about it, I'm trying not to). First of all, did you know any of the above (don't answer that one online, that one's just for your internal consideration)? Were you aware of the attitudes of the OSS communities and Oracle over the last few months and the concerns among the first about the latter (don't answer that one online either)? Were you aware that it was even an existing issue (don't answer that one online either)? So here's the question, at long last (and again, don't answer it online if you don't want to): are you sure you are sufficiently invested in the subject matter to make a proper determination of whether this article is notable or not?  Again, I apologize if it seems I'm getting nasty. But you have to understand, your telling me (us) that OpenIndiana is not noteworthy just because it is new is like me telling you (with an interest in history subjects here on Wikipedia) that the Balfour Declaration isn't notable because it's just a letter of intent for a minor land deal. Or that Æthelred I of Northumbria is not notable because he never got much mention in the New York Times. -- BenTels (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all, please know that I did not read anything "nasty" in your questions or comment. I fully believe your comments and commitment to this article are offered in good faith. My professional background from the 90s, over a span of about three years includes serving as a member of Sun's HR Business Advisory Council. I also worked closely with Larry Ellison and designed a comprehensive image/branding package. I served as a loaned executive and networked with Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy, as well as various other executives from the San Jose area raising over $7 million for United Way. Although computer/software technology is not my specialty, I have several friends who work/ed in those areas for both Sun and Oracle. They have often shared their frustrations, concerns, and uncertainties with me over the past couple of years. I am peripherally aware of the power shifting going on, along with the issues which you have presented. I am very aware of the current lawsuit regarding Google. My conscience remains clear. All of this has nothing to do with the ability to identify notability according to guidelines and criteria established by Wikipedia. The article and OpenIndiana project continues to lack notability. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Considering the close relationship you esposed with the company executives which were and are currently involved with trying to drag the free OpenSolaris community developers and users into a pay-for-use model of Oracle Solaris and Oracle SolarisExpress, the common wikipedia contributor might question your neutrality in trying to get the OpenIndiana wikipedia article deleted. Not to suggest that your suggestion to delete the article is malicious, but any common wikipedia contributor reading your comments to delete an article with such enthusiasm could interpret your actions with very mixed motivations. I respectfully don't consider Cindamuse unbiased enough with the self-described history to suggest deletion of the article due to conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. What an absolutely blatant misinterpretation of my comments above. Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited on Wikipedia. In full disclosure, I offered a bit of my background, openly admitting that my knowledge in software development is nil to peripheral. As I clearly stated, I have no background in computer/software technology. I had never heard of OpenIndiana prior to participating in the Recent Changes Patrol. My peripheral involvement in Sun and Oracle was over 15 years ago. My involvement with my friends that work for those companies is strictly personal. While some work in computer/software technology, I am not familiar with their current projects or whether they are involved in the development of either OpenSolaris or OpenIndiana. I have not inherited any knowledge nor formed an opinion of either OpenIndiana or OpenSolaris through any of my personal or professional affiliations. The information provided above clearly shows that I have no involvement with this project. The original question posed regarded my understanding of the specific issues stated. The closest I have been involved in the computer industry includes a career in human resources with a large Bay area manufacturing company contracted to build hardware for various companies. I also have a background working in state government in employment development. I am very knowledgeable of the faltering tech industry and high unemployment rate in the Bay area. My background is not software technology, but human resources, strategic research and development, and writing and editing. My focus here and interest in OpenIndiana rests solely on the lack of notability of the project, as appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no conflict of interest. And OpenIndiana continues to lack notability. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Cindamuse states "too new to have established notability at this time."  I can see no  has time based criteria for WP:ORG. The notability criteria that appear  applicable given OpenIndiana is a non-commercial organisation would seem a) activity scope and b) information verifiability. RE: The project is international (e.g. contributors to this discussion). RE: Information verifiability. there would seem enough press discourse to cover this matter. I am not part of the team that started OpenIndiana and have no COI apart from seeking to ensure a future for open source Solaris. As  for reasons outside the scope of this discussion, open source Solaris is something I believe is of significant notability.  Given the level of investment required to produce a new binary release of a major operating system on that basis alone OpenIndiana is notable. Given the number of independent IT experts commenting on this deletion request, I will put out there the project is notable because a community of international IT experts saying it is. This debate is now distracting. The matter for request for deletion should be closed. Haynesp (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Ahem. It lacks notability in your opinion. By now I think that's a more accurate way of putting it. -- BenTels (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, my opinion doesn't factor. The subject lacks notability according to Wikipedia, as presented in WP:ORG. Cindamuse (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's what you say. Aside from the fact that applicability of WP:ORG itself is questionable, most people so far don't seem to agree. Which, again, means that it lacks notability according to you. -- BenTels (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just for the information of the contributors here: I've just noticed that the WikiProject Software has rated the OpenIndiana article as Mid-Importance. Don't know if it is relevant in a formal sense, but it seems to me it would be weird to have a finding of no notability in conjunction with that rating. -- BenTels (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Wait and see. Notability seems to be established. Further developmenst may or may not make a merge to the OpenSolaris article useful, but right now we don't know. I'm confident this article will not end up as an unmainatained stub. Wefa (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's evidence of notability. ekerazha (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The Software-stub template could be added. ekerazha (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point; I've added it. -- BenTels (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep OpenIndiana is a national registered non-profit organization in the United States. the cadence of industry news from commercial publishers about OpenIndiana had been continuous since the initial announcements hit the press.
 * Keep

2010-09-10 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU4OA http://www.developer.com/daily_news/article.php/410918/OpenSolaris-Fork-OpenIndiana-to-be-Announced-Next-Tuesday.htm http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/openindiana_launch/

2010-09-11 http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/The-H-Week-OpenIndiana-ZFS-Java-Flash-spies-1076894.html

2010-09-13 http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/41808-opensolaris-fork-to-be-announced

2010-09-15 http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Illumos-Foundation-launches-OpenIndiana-1079376.html http://www.developer.com/daily_news/article.php/411292/OpenIndiana-Launched.htm

2010-09-16 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7861/ http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/article/04ca0aEaR38mC?q=Oracle

Notability seems to be established, all issues regarding notability should be purged from this discussion page so we can get down to whatever issues remain. Merging with OpenSolaris would be like merging RedHat and Linux pages, which was not done on Wikipedia. OpenSolaris is controlled by Oracle, which OpenIndiana is not. Confusion may boil down to OpenSolaris was was an overloaded trademark (a commercially owned thing, source code repository, a community project, a binary distribution, a source of continual patch updates), originally started off as a source code repository, and grew organically into these other areas. OpenSolaris was not necessarily "canceled" as some of the people wishing to "Delete" this article suggested, but community participation was limited by the trademark owner (i.e. the creation of Illumos resulted.) Regular binary distributions are no longer being rolled (i.e. the creation of OpenIndiana resulted.) Patches for regular binary distributions are no longer being rolled (i.e. a suggested future goal of OpenIndiana.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep Nomination is a clear violation of WP:COI  jonathon (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is no conflict of interest. My comments and response have been misinterpreted. I have provided a response above. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep While I don't see the claimed violation of WP:COI I do see the article's notability. I'm no user of any Solaris, the closest is my Linux box, yet I know what OpenIndiana is (roughly) and expect to be able to inform myself here on the Wikipedia. The Project seems active enough so I don't see the Article being abandoned anytime soon. --Deelkar (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to make it clear, I'm not disputing jonathon, I just didn't research the issue much.--Deelkar (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The nomination of this article is utterly arbitrary, as can be seen from what articles about other Linux and OpenSolaris distributions exist. First, there are articles about Illumos (which is not a distribution but a fork of the core OpenSolaris code base) as well as about other distributions based on OpenSolaris, namely Nexenta, SchilliX, and BeleniX. A reader wanting to learn about OpenSolaris and its derivatives would be confused as to why there are articles about those distributions but not about OpenIndiana, especially given that Oracle has canceled OpenSolaris as a distribution and OpenIndiana is intended to be its replacement. While OpenIndiana is newer than those other distributions, the fact that (judging by posts on the OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list) its first development release is as stable and polished as the best of the OpenSolaris development releases demonstrates that it is a viable project, so it cannot be treated as "not notable" on account of its newness.

Second, since OpenIndiana is a derivative of what will be Oracle Solaris 11, it is analogous to CentOS, which is a derivative of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There exists not only an article on CentOS, but also on at least five other derivatives of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including, ironically, Oracle Enterprise Linux, as one knows from the article Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives. If the article on OpenIndiana is deleted, then fairness would require that the article on Oracle Enterprise Linux be deleted as well, although there is no indication that deleting the latter article has even occurred to anyone. -- Herzen (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A review of WP:OSE may provide answers to your questions. Cindamuse (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. To quote from that article:
 * Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing. Herzen (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. High schools and geographic features are specific areas where notability is subjective devoid of guidelines. Therefore, it may be appropriate to introduce precedent based on other articles. Notability of companies (and their projects) are determined according to an established guideline. The above quotation does not apply in this situation. In the AfD, the conversation needs to focus on this specific article. Attempting to assert the legitimacy of one article, based on the legitimacy of another is not helpful in this forum. Cindamuse (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment.I hate to be critical of individuals, but I believe that Cindamuse has plainly declared above that he or she has a conflict of interest. Having tried for speedy deletion, and then normal deletion, I think that if (s)he persists, the conflict of interest process should be invoked. This is not just a simple difference of opinion. It is rather obvious that Oracle, and Larry Ellison in particular, might want this article to be suppressed. This has gone on for long enough now. Of course, if Oracle do want this article to be suppressed, that would be one more reason for it being notable.Tiger99 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have not declared a conflict of interest. I have clearly stated above, that there is no conflict of interest. I have no personal or professional interest in OpenIndiana outside of the fact that the project is currently in development, lacking notability according to WP:ORG. I also remain concerned when Wikipedia is used to promote a commercial venture. Please remember to assume good faith. These personal attacks against my integrity are inappropriate. Furthermore, using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Cindamuse (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Dear Tiger99 in the spirit of "getting along" may I suggest you retract your COI statement. Dear Cindamuse, your statement above is factually incorrect. OpenIndiana is not a commercial venture - it is a community one. Your lack of notability argument is thus flawed as the criteria stated in WP:ORG for community organisations is different. Furthermore, apart from your subjective arguments, my reading of  your argument of lack of independence is also incorrect. I used the word "betrayal" above to help paint the scene that the open source solaris community is recovering from a large companies dealings. This work has been underway for some time with considerable effort on a key technology.  As such you are commenting on a highly emotive issue - particularly when some of the commenters here are experts in the field (e.g Webmink), and you have stated that your are not. May I ask that you respect this sensitivity. Haynesp (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. I sincerely appreciate the clarity regarding the commercial nature of this project. Honestly, I'm concerned when Wikipedia is used solely to promote anything for any purpose. Criteria within WP:ORG defines an organization as a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This is the appropriate guideline under which OpenIndiana falls. Additional information on independent sources can be found here, and here. I respect the process and individuals participating in this discussion. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, but prefer to reason through the presentation of WP policy and guidelines. This is not the place for emotional interference. I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the situation. Cindamuse (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. OpenIndiana has received a flood of offers for mirrors, which can be seen here . The IRC channel also has over 150 active users. OpenIndiana is now being tracked in distro watch. Despite being a new project, I feel notability has been established. OpenIndiana is very much here for the long haul - and given the sheer lack of alternatives now that Solaris 10 is no longer free to use in production and OpenSolaris no longer exists, unless another fork comes along, OpenIndiana is going to end up being the de-facto replacement for OpenSolaris installs. We've had over 2000 downloads of the ISO and there is a constant stream of people updating their OpenSolaris boxes to OpenIndiana. Deleting this article would be absurd, as it would just get re-created over and over by confused individuals wondering why it's missing.
 * AlasdairLumsden 02:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC) — AlasdairLumsden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Based on coverage in other media, and status as a strong contender to being the defacto successor to OpenSolaris notability shouldn't even be a question. What is open to question is why the notability of OpenIndiana is even being questioned in the first place. Ferritecore (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (on my own 'Keep'). It is notable that OpenIndiana coverage is not restricted to personal blogs and open-source fan-boy sites, but extends to serious industry publications as well: ZDNet Australia, InfoWorld, iTWire and numerous others, including forign language publications I can't evaluate. I've ommited publications such as The Register that are particularly open source friendly. Ferritecore (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is unmistakably a notable subject given the media coverage, flood of activity in the community and prominence of the topic and I am in awe of the lack of insight and/or subject bias that would lead to a new article about it being nominated for deletion. Much that is wrong with deletionist attitudes on Wikipedia is summarised in this action. Webmink (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per citations above. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This project has press coverage most Open Source projects could only dream of, and is clearly not vaporware, having already made a release. This is well-established in the references listed above and in the article itself. Tom W.M. (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge to OpenSolaris. I agree about the flood of coverage, all within 4 days of each other and all rehashing the press-release.  The OpenSolaris is notable, this is not, or at least not yet. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's not an option. First of all because OpenSolaris is dead (so if anything OpenSolaris should then be replaced with OpenIndiana, not the other way around). Second because it's factually incorrect, since OpenIndiana is not merely a renaming of OpenSolaris; it is a different project and will be built around a different kernel. Also, your statement that all the press coverage is a mere rehashing of the press release is factually incorrect, as is even explained in the article. -- BenTels (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I quote: the first release is still based around OS/Net. New kernel releases - vaporware.  Yes a couple of the blogs/articles that rehashed the press release did so negatively. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The project roadmap and release schedule for the next two Illumos releases is available. Even if it wasn't, merging into OpenSolaris is still not an option because OpenSolaris is still as dead as King Tut. And even if it wasn't, OpenIndiana is still a fork (or spork, if you insist) by its own declaration so it's still factually incorrect to call it the same thing. -- BenTels (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to make the distinction clear: take Interface21 for example. That company changed its name to SpringSource, making it a continuation of the same thing. Merging two articles on the two and making Interface21 a redirect to SpringSource would be correct. By comparison, Ubuntu was a fork of Debian &mdash; that's not a continuation, so calling it the same thing is not correct. That latter case applies here as well. -- BenTels (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

--
 * Speedy keep: At this time I am strengthening my original vote to speedy keep. In addition to all the arguments previously given (by others and myself), I'm adding WP:SNOW, in that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there's going to be a consensus to delete. The term for debate has passed and people are starting to snipe at each other, so there's obviously nothing new to say. It's time to end this. -- BenTels (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the way, I'm going to post on the AfD talk page to explicitly ask for an admin to close this one down. It's done and it's going to get nasty if we leave it going. -- BenTels (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dear BenTel. The tone of your comment is unacceptable. Please retract and be nice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesp (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Errr... I'm not quite sure if you were being ironic here or not. -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:At this point I'm going to guess that you're not being ironic. I'm not trying to attack anybody, please see my comments at the top of the page on that (and sorry if it seems otherwise). -- BenTels (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : Notability clearly established per WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:10, 23 September 2010 (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.