Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDUINOScope


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

RDUINOScope

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only significant sources I could find about this software project was from Hackaday, the rest are mostly forum posts or website profiles. In addition, the article has a promotional tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is written by the inventor, but this only contributes to the facts! HACKADAY is a reliable source, but additionally the project won 3 semifinals! This obviously asserts the notabiliity! Additionally, this is the FIRST Arduino based, Free and Stand-Alone Telescope controller! No other in the world.
 * I'd like to provie arguments against Deletion of this article:

Promotional tone... I'm not sure I understand. It is a free Software and Hardware! Do you consider that the 3rd party development "pre-built" version does not need to be included ?

Additional Sources: https://hackaday.com/2017/07/03/best-product-entry-telescope-control-with-rduinoscope/ https://hackaday.com/2017/04/11/keep-an-eye-on-the-sky-with-rduinoscope/ unsigned writing by user:DEsko 76


 * The promotional tone, and how-to aspects of the article can be easily edited off, so they are not reasons for deletion. However I can confirm that it only seems to be covered by blogs, social networking sites, and hackaday. I think the topic shoul wait for an appearance in an Astronomy magazine, or a description in a journal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I go back and create this Wikipedia page after it is published ? I'm affraid that this project will not gain publicity very fast, but step-by-step we got to 300+ followers and gaining some media attention.
 * I understand! As this is Open Source project, it is not funded and as such is hard to receive a review in Astronomy magazines. However there is one Astronomy magazine - "Sky & Telescope" who agree to post an article on their website, which should happen in the next few weeks (we have completed the article editing and now waiting for the publishing).


 * Article you wrote about your product is not "independent reliable source" for Wikipedia". You need third party coverage (eg. review in such magazine by staff member), not paid adverts. Pavlor (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have updated the "pre-built"version and hope it does not sound promotional. In addition I hope to have an article on "Sky&Telescope" magazine's website next week, as it was initially scheduled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

delete This appears to be pure WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not the place to promote products. This has not received any meaningful coverage. Without WP:RS citations, this simply does not belong. Please note that the single reference you just added does not qualify - it is a blog, and thus not a reliable source. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 16:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have added new source of information from Adafruit : https://blog.adafruit.com/2017/07/18/how-to-make-astronomy-even-better-with-arduino-citizenscience/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, yesterday Sky&Telescope Magazine posted an article on their website in the STARGAZING corner. Please, let me know if this reference is a meaningful and adds value to the article ? - http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/stargazers-corner/rduinoscope-boiana-diy-go-to-unit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Additionally If you try searchig for "Free Telescope Controller", rDUINOScope is the 3rd, 4th result. It has a Website and Facebook page... It is NOT a WP:PROMO! I don't need to promote this project as there is no financial benefit, not this is a product at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsko 76 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can anyone assess whether the new source passes the article over the bar?
 * Please, note that this article is not about PRODUCT, but about an Open Source Project... The same as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FarmBot or  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarium_(software) and as you can see they are counting mainly on BLOG posts.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Sky and Telescope is a reliable source in general, but the article rDUINOScope Boiana: DIY Go To Unit was written by the creator of rDUINOScope Boiana, so this is not an independent third party source. I don't see any independent reliable sources for this device. I'm not convinced that Hackaday is a reliable source. Without independent reliable sources according to WP:RS and WP:GNG, the article fails notability guidelines. Perhaps if and when the device garners in-depth coverage in multiple independent reviews, this could be revisited. It's a cool project. But right now, there just aren't the independent RS to support an article. Hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2018 (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.