Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xvisor


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Xvisor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY -- I'm not finding the sort of significant third-party sources that would indicate notability. No relevant gnews hits (unsurprisingly), ghits seem to be the official site, chat forums, and distribution databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nat. Sorry for my newbie attitude but I am trying to understand what you are considering as acceptable for WP:NOTABILITY. What kind of proof/reference are you expecting to consider Xvisor as worth including? --Jean-Christophe DUBOIS (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a very fair question, and it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about (welcome in, by the way). The basic idea is that we can't rely on stuff that you or me can edit whenever we like, so blogs, personal websites, wikis (yes, even this one), Amazon and so on aren't generally usable. You can use published books, newspapers, and other authoritative sources, which have to be independent of the subject of the article, and are secondary reports rather than primary research. So a paper that compares different products objectively would be OK, but a newsletter published by a software house about its own products would not (except to show that a product existed, and perhaps to obtain some details about it, not to prove notability). Hope this helps a bit, and that you like it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. We are a new open-source community-based hypervisor so, more research papers are to follow. It is only 1 year old and no software house or corporate owns Xvisor. We had published a news article on LWN almost a year back (please see, [LWN Xvisor Announcement]). The LWN is very reliable and authentic news site for any news related to Linux kernel (For more info, LWN). The LWN thoroughly reviews any news before publishing. Can you consider LWN news as a verifiable reference of Xvisor ? --Anuppateli (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even without qualifying LWN in general, the piece appears to be the republication of a press release, and under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, press releases don't count. I understand that your product is a new one and has not gotten much coverage yet, and no one here is saying "this cannot possibly ever be notable", merely that its notability is not yet established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I cannot find independent coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, yes, sorry but this seems much WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Please come back when people in independent journals and reliable websites have written about you. Good luck with the product. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Nat Gertler. Notability not yet established. But looks like a good project that should of course be included when/if it get picked up by reliable sources. Runarb (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. There was a brief trivial mention of the subject in a ZDNet article, but that's not enough to meet the general notability guideline criteria.-- xanchester  (t)  16:09, 24 October 2012 (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.