Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyIDS


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

TinyIDS

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability not established, simply created by author/manager of software (see project page and page history) Simeon (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Excuse me, but I refuse to be judged by that person. I already have wasted about two hours with this situation and I do not want to waste any more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeNotaras (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Simeon (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. I am deeply skeptical here about the real intentions of the person who suggests the deletion of an article about an open-source software because he cannot google enough information about the software. I am the author of TinyIDS. Its development has cost me a big amount of free time and effort. Nevertheless, I provide the software to you people for free! You can use it, copy it, distribute it, build upon it and, generally, do whatever you like with it as long as you comply with the Apache license. This is not commercial software. What exactly did you expect to find on the web? My release announcements in forums/mailing lists? Software reviews in magazines? My own spam messages to forums to let people know about the software? An ad campaign maybe? I seriously wonder what exactly you expected to find on the web while searching about TinyIDS and, apparently, you did not find. I have submitted the software to one or two open-source software directories. Also, I created an informational page in Wikipedia as a summary of the software's functionality. There are numerous such articles in Wikipedia. I seriously do not see anything wrong here. The software exists. The software is released as Free/Open-Source Software. The software is functional and performs exactly as described. You can get the source code and check it out yourselves. Also, the informational article was written with special care to provide only the absolutely necessary information about the project. I was surprised by the deletion message and I expect a serious reason for the deletion of the article, because what you have provided so far does not make any sense. If you want to find more info in google about the TinyIDS open-source project the next time you search the web, you can simply donate some money to the project so I can invest some more time to run an advertisement campaign. Thanks for reading. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to share with you my exasperation about my open-source software related article being judged/moderated by someone:
 * who hides himself behind a nickname (Joe Chill), while being an article moderator in Wikipedia,
 * who publicly admits that he uses his second account due to harassment and personal attacks he receives on his first account,
 * who is not talented enough to download an open-source software and rely upon the source code in order to verify the information that exists in the Wikipedia article, but wishes to rely upon other resources (of undisclosed type) on the web.
 * I'm not judging you. I'm not judging your software. I'm judging your article. Here's a few reasons why it should be deleted: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for already notable topics. You said that other articles like this exist. Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you read WP:N, you'd see why it's being debated for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem. You judge an article, which is a functional overview of a computer security open-source software, without being able to check on the software's source-code in order to verify the information that the article contains. You expect to verify the article relying upon other information you expect to find on the web. In my opinion, this is fundamentally wrong. The only accurate method to verify the article is to check the software itself, because this is what it is about. I insist that the article contains 100% accurate and up-to-date information. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that it didn't pass verifiability. I said that it doesn't pass notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please be polite in the discussion, and assume good faith. GeorgeNotaras, as the developer you have a conflict of interest and wikipedia policy encourages editors to stay away from topics in which they have a direct interest. Also, please take a look at WP:RS and WP:N for wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source that can be used to establish notability. Articles must be notable, and the only question here is whether or not there is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability according to wikipedia's guidelines. Please post any questions you may have, especially if you are not familiar with this process. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I have been impolite. I'd like to repeat that this is not an article about history or politics or a biography or an advertisement of a commercial piece of software. It is a functional overview of a computer security Free/Open-Source software. There is no other way to verify the article content except for checking the software it describes. If the article is accurate, I do not see anything wrong about it. Finally, I'd like to express my respect to what you do here in Wikipedia, but I have the impression that there is little value in the reason behind the deletion suggestion. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand where you are coming from--and since I work as a net admin, I can take a look at the source code, it sounds like an interesting piece of code. Unfortunately, how interesting it is, or how well it performs, or how well it is documented, or how accurately the article describes the software, is here, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant. What you need to establish notability are references--reviews of the software in reliable magazines and newspapers, in paper or on line, discussion of the software in depth in books, that kind of thing. For FOSS projects, that's a high bar, since most people interested in FOSS projects tend to eschew such and stick to forums or blogs, repositories such as sourceforge, and the like, which are not considered reliable sources by wikipedia. Please do not take this personally, it may well be that your project is not yet notable, but will be at a later date. -- Nuujinn (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=9177. Toddst1 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyvio, since George Notaras was the author of the text on that site, and just copied his own words here. Torchiest talk/contribs 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The user Toddst1 is absolutely clueless about how the internet works and I consider him dangerous for the Wikipedia community. Information is reproduced in every possible way on the net and I have no way to interfere in this process. Moreover, the software's initial announcement was released in the Public Domain by me, so it can be legitimately reproduced in any way other people see fit. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * George, with all due respect, you are clueless about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict rules regarding which subjects which deserve articles.  Being a programmer, you should be familiar with following rules.  Why don't you go read a few of them before thrashing your ego around here like an idiot.    talk 23:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a software directory. I understand you want to spread the word about your software, which I'm sure you worked really hard on, but this isn't an appropriate venue for that. Torchiest talk/contribs 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find an independent review from a mainstream S/W reviewer or other publications which refer to it.  Sorry, but it's a niche product and fails on any notability test.  -- TerryE (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SOFT. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * More Time. I've been through the Wikipedia:N document. I think this particular article falls into the category of an article about a specialized field and should have been flagged with the  tag as recommended in the Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines section. Apart from that, the TinyIDS article is a functional overview of a software, the source code of which is publicly available for inspection and verification. Please, do not get me wrong, but, although I do not question your ability to judge articles on Wikipedia, I consider that the vast majority of the commenters here do not have the right qualifications to judge this particular type of articles (functional overviews of software), because such a process would require the verification of the software's functionality and the only safe method to do this is to try the software or inspect the source code, if it is available. Apart from all the above, I can understand the problem about notability. But, if we can agree that the article presents accurate and up-to-date information without misleading the public and that its presence in Wikipedia does not constitute a form of commercial advertisement, I think you could give me some more time in order to make the software more known to the public. Please understand that I do not have plenty of free time to invest on something like that. Also, please understand that being in the field of Health Care I have absolutely no benefit from the promotion of this software. I have written the software to cover the special needs of my servers, but I also decided to release it as free software, which means you can get the result of my hard work for free. There is no commercial organization behind the software and I have no financial benefit from it since it is provided to you for free. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you get no commercial gain from it, couldn't you just post all this information on a blog site or something similar elsewhere? As long as the information is available online somewhere, it seems like your goal would be achieved.  Perhaps somewhere down the line, if and when the software received enough coverage to pass the notability guidelines, you could recreate the article here. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I can make the software more known to the public, but please understand that this is a low priority for me, since I do not have much free time. When will the article be deleted? I need some time. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero hits in google books/news/scholar for this particular software. The chances are overwhelmingly against it passing the WP:N test. Pcap ping  16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Move move the page to a user subpage. That will give them more time to fix it. After the user is ready he could submit it through Articles for Creation for review. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. It looks as if the software was just released a month or so ago, so it's unlikely that there exist reliable secondary sources yet.  (I can, however, verify the content of the article.  I hope that it will receive some coverage -- I like it, but that's not a criterion for keeping, unfortunately.  For such a specialized area, I'd say even one solid source would be enough to wait and see what develops, but with none, I can't justify a keep.) Shimeru (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userspace incubation isn't going to help here; the problem isn't just that the article doesn't sufficiently assert its notability, but that the subject does not actually appear to be notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Userfication or incubation is not likely to solve the main issue with this article anytime soon. Pcap ping  14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have written in the article's discussion page, I come to the conclusion that, in order to keep the article in Wikipedia, I will need to spend more time or even money in order to advertise the software, despite its source code being provided for free in its entirety and despite the fact that I have no financial or other benefit from it. I finally think that trying to keep the article in Wikipedia is not worth the effort/time/money. Rules are rules and I have to comply, regardless of the fact that I consider the rule about notability to be in direct contradiction to the fact that free/open-source software can be perfectly verified by inspecting the source code without requiring a third party to declare the software valid. Anyway, I find this whole conversation quite educational and constructive and thank all who have participated. Please feel free to do whatever you consider right with the article. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to note one thing that you repeatedly bring up: it's not about the article's contents, the specific details of the software or our ability to read the source code. The point is that the software is, at the moment, relatively unknown and Wikipedia is not a place to make software more known to the public. The software should first become more known/used and then it could be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You don't need to spend more time on advertising or more money, but it does need more time to let the public notice and use your software. You should keep in mind that there are many software projects like this and we've set the bar a little higher than just having an article about any software out there. I hope you will find this explanation acceptable and that it'll motivate you to spread the word about your software so that we can include it later on. It needs time. Regards, Simeon (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No google hits for this particular computer program... as the above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I sympathize with the author the system is not yet known. Userfication will not solve the problem anytime soon BUT it is not due to the subject not being notable.Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While the program is interesting, interestingness is not a requirement for inclusion in WP. Someone (hopefully without a conflict of interest and a fragile ego) can recreate this article when/if the software gains some degree of verifiable notoriety.    talk 23:18, 21 May 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.