Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bugapi

Something to add to Smerdis of Tlön's opinion
I generally agree with Smerdis of Tlön's view, but want to add one thing: I think the bar is currently too high for open source projects. They are being dealt with in the same way products are, but the coverage is very different for open source projects. They aren't covered in mainstream sources, but are instead covered in a lot of WP:SPS sources. The deletion (and subsequent DRV) of Nemerle is a great example of this. We still need inclusion guidelines, otherwise people will just churn out thousands of articles on their crappy "look, I made an address book in Visual Basic" projects, but it does seem like open source project articles get deleted quite often. I'm not sure how one formulates a rule for open source notability, but it should be something we think about. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see both points of view but think that there is ample opportunity for open source projects to demonstrate notability. If you look at Google Code or SourceForge, there are thousands of projects of varying levels of activities.  Are they all notable? Certainly not.  Are some notable?  Definitely.  How do we know which ones are and which ones aren't?  We use the same guidelines that have served us well, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.  If any of these open source projects is notable, someone somewhere will write something about it in an independent and verifiable source.  Forgive the strawman but there isn't anything special about open source software that should allow them to be treated any differently.  We see a lot more use of blogs and self published sources as references in articles like this but that doesn't mean the rules should be relaxed.  It would be great if there were a reliable source that reviewed these open source projects.  RSDN is nice but it's not the most accessible source for an english wiki.


 * Looking at Nemerle, it's a good example of why deletion reviews should restore articles to user space first and allow recreation only after it's been properly sourced.  Passionate editors scramble to save the article and then leave the work for others to finish or just leave the article to rot.


 * Also worth pointing out that the article in question here isn't about an open source project, while it was made available for free download and use, it's not open source. Subtle but important difference.  Back to the user discussion...--RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably a better subject for the WP:CORP talk page. Personally, while I don't think we should have a particular bias in favour of open source or free software, what counts as a reliable source is subject to context.  A lot of the development history of Linux, especially in the early days, is in Usenet posts and the like.  There is plenty of software from the 8 bit era that has genuine historical or cultural significance that's going to be referenced only to text files written by guys with goofy handles like my own.  Then again, I can remember when we had to whittle our own microchips out of wood. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My own 2 c on the outside opinion by Smerdis of Tlön
I think the 'bitten badly' is too strong. Maybe the page didn't need to be nominated for deletion quite so quickly, but I don't think RadioFan was harsh in any of his dealings with Bugapi. On my part, I have repeatedly tried to fix Bugapi's linking problems and misperceptions. Really only in my last reply in this AFD did I say anything remotely bitey, and thats after being repeatedly accused of censoring him and removing his article with duplicitous edit summaries. I personally at this point don't think that any clarification in policy pages would have avoided this - Bugapi thinks he deserves an article on his webserver, and anyone who thinks otherwise is "The Man" trying to keep his bytes locked in obscurity. Syrthiss (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

on hold
I have placed this RFC on indefinite hold as the subject is blocked. It can be re-opened if desired should the block be overturned in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)