Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asturix (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asturix

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Asturix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: AfD header added. User:OsmanRF34 is the apparent nominator. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage": it has been very coveraged. As you see, it has been coveraged by Televisión Española, Linux Magazine, Onda Cero, DistroWatch, La Nueva España, and so on. It makes it REALLY noteable.
  • "Reliable": all the sources that are here are full reliable. Most of them are from the official websites of the source.
  • "Sources": you only have to see the number of sources...
  • "Independent of the subject": I think this article is unbiased. If you don't think the same you can edit it.
  • "Presumed": I think this distribution deserve a site on Wikipedia. It's only my opinion but the sources talk for me.

--Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the WP:NSOFT claim, I would say that the rules, as in WP:NSOFT, say "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.". DistroWatch or Linux Magazine can be considered reliable sources in its field. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's important to note that Asturix is an association, so WP:NSOFT don't work very well here. Perphaps it work with the "Asturix OS" section, but it itself is not enough to destroy all the article. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, WP:NSOFT for the section about the OS, WP:ORG for the organization as a whole. To be honest, I think you're better off sticking with WP:NSOFT, as that seems to be closer to being fulfilled here. Ansh666 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator, OsmanRF34, is showing a biased, personal behavior. Yesterday he entered in the Spanish Wikipedia article of Asturix and mark it to a speedy deletion (1), without giving any explanation. He did the same in the English Wikipedia page (2). The old Spanish Wikipedia article was deleted because he did the same: speedy deletion, and then it was deleted because anybody notice that speedy deletion notice. He tries to do everything through the fast way. No debates, no questions. Why is OsmanRF34 behaving in that way? Does s/he have any interest? Does s/he have a WP:JDLI attitude? What's more, he tried to do a proposed deletion that was rejected by an admin, as the admin thought that he was doing a WP:POINT, because OsmanRF34 has done a lot of non-sense deletion nominations (3). Which interests does OsmanRF34 have? Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even though this article was deleted before as not notable, the current refs cited include some complete articles on the distro in reliable sources, showing that the article now meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete. Some complete articles appeared in Hecticgeek. This was already discussed in the last successful AfD. The page looks like a one-man show blog, posting about this and everything. Equally, it should be taken into account what was said about DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking in the previous discussion, which, by my standards was pretty complete one. Linux mag was indeed a blog on Linux mag, mentioning the existence of yet another Linux distro.
Since this is an OS WP:NSOFT has to be applied here. Specially the part about "The state of the software itself. " This software is not being developed. It could not attain notability being dead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 44 is a detailed review in an independent third party publication, as is Ref 26, Ref 14 and Ref 2. Those alone are enough to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me not, according to WP:NSOFT (which is a different kind of notability, adapted to assess software): it has to stand out of the crowd, which in a crowded niche, like the field of Linux distros is not the case. Another point is the state of the software, although an inactive project with historical significance would be notable, I don't see why Asturix would be a more advanced level of anything. Add to that that "a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable. Stories on software as the product of a local company in a small region may not be evidence of notability. The source of the reporting is important to evaluating whether the software is only important to a limited geographical scope." Asturix has a real problem here, when ti comes down to NSOFT and not only N. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ahunt. The matter is not what you think. The rules, as in WP:NSOFT, say "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.". DistroWatch or Linux Magazine can be considered reliable sources in its field. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Going to have to say the new sourcing meets GNG, while a lot of the sources are connected, for "History" that is acceptable and while I would like to see more critical reception the article has a the presumption that other sources can and do exist. Secondly, coverage in foreign media is perfectly acceptable, regional television and magazines and major websites all count towards GNG. We have several sources which all show notability and that is why this article should be kept. Also NRVE applies. So I'm going to go against my previous delete rational since the improvements have contributed to meeting N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSOFT should be applied. The sources are announcing the release, not assessing its importance, analyzing its significance. They are restricted to a one-off event, which does not imply notability. If this were not software, maybe it would be notable. But software dies. And in this case without leaving a trace. The PR-guy of Asturix keeps pushing and quoting Linux Mag, but not mentioning that its a blog post, about one of the 'developers', and not a real analysis. The issued with DistroWatch has already been dealt with in the previous AfD (among many other flaws).
I'm not surprised that User:Kikichugirl tagged that article as advertising 12 minutes after its creation. Richiguada remove the tag in 20 minutes.
All who care to read the article and the source will see what a blatant advertising this thing is, of a dead project, in a vain attempt to drag attention to other project of the 'developers.' OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't try to confuse to the voters. First of all, it's NOT a dead project. The article didn't say it anywhere. So, please, don't make up anything. And this is NOT software. The article is dedicated to an association, NOT software. And if you want to tag the article as an advert, simply do it. I only deleted it because I made some changes, and I considered deleting it. Nothing wrong with it. You are acting as a clear WP:JDLI. Stop confusing, please. Give reason, not personal attacks (WP:NPA). We are talking about the article, not about my behavior. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 21:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't say that, and the text that could be interpreted as such is unsourced...was that planned on your part perhaps? Anyhow, why didn't you tell us to use WP:ORG in the first AfD or even until now? To me, it looks like you're ignoring the problem and trying to find a completely different thing to argue. I also fail to see a personal attack in there. Strong language, maybe, but not a personal attack - he's questioning a possible WP:COI. I'd also like to remind you that accusing someone of making a personal attack is in itself a personal attack. Ansh666 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about deleting this article. You can use WP:ORG or WP:NSOFT, as you want. The article talk mainly about the SO. Of course that there aren't any sources about the OS because I haven't made well that part. I consider a fake COI a personal attack. If in your view I am doing this as a "strategy", ok, congrats. If you think so, who am I to say that's wrong? Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if the article is about an association called Asturix it's even a clearer case of non-notability. The sources assert that an OS adaptation has been released, but there is nothing there that would make this association notable. Have they produced anything of value? Notability is not predictive, and it's not based on expectations. Summarizing: as software it's dead. If the reports were about it as an association then maybe, but they are not. As an association it is lousy too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As a NPP, I saw it as not really qualifying for G11 since it had some sources, so I tagged the article as reading like an advertisement. And it still reads like an advertisement. It has potential for improvement if someone will rewrite the promotional stuff (namely the History section) but I'm not sure if it should be kept or deleted. — kikichugirl inquire 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sp-wp version of Asturix was also deleted and re-created recently by Richiguada. There she also changed from "Asturix is an OS" to "Asturix is an association." Basically, the page is the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sp-wp version of Asturix was also deleted without having any debate and re-created recently by myself. I re-created the article from scratch (the sp-wp and en-wp versions are the same). Basically, the page is completely different from the deleted one. Note the change in sources. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fail to see what means "also deleted without having any dabate" (sic). There is plenty of good arguments for deleting the previous versions, and the new one seems even worse than that. Is Richiguada claiming that this is a notable org or notable software? She should clarify, so we can check the supposed sources that establish N. And, if Asturix were well-known and notable in Spain, the page wouldn't be gone. 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"if Asturix were well-known and notable in Spain, the page wouldn't be gone." Great fallacy. Superb one. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Thanks for the English lesson, Osman. As we have seen, you are magician, since you can guess the gender of the people without any source. Nice magic, indeed. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 23:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find if of the utmost importance to know if this is about a supposedly notable organization or supposedly notable OS. We have to decide if we apply NORG or NSOFT. I still maintain that in both cases the result is delete. To keep the discussion going could be kind of unproductive otherwise. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think generally far too much weight is put on this, when dealing with internet-related properties. I'm personally much more interested in preventing harm than simply following rules. The key question I ask in these debates is "would the world be better off if this article is removed?". In some cases the answer is clearly "yes", spam articles, hate mongering, link bait and Google rankers are all examples of articles who's removal improves the world. On the flip side, there are many articles who's presence is all positive, in spite of violating any hard and fast rules about NOTE. I'm not sure where I stand on this particular case, I see reasonable arguments on both sides. But simply appealing to NORG and NSOFT doesn't help, IMHO. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tone it a little bit down. We shouldn't follow WP:ORG, WP:NSOFT or also WP:NOTNEWS blindly, but just use them as guidelines. Even if an article doesn't meet them, the world won't necessarily be better off without it. But in this case, we have here a rather convoluted article, about an association which got supposedly notable customizing an OS (not produced by the association itself). Said OS-customization is not being developed anymore, and the association is into an assorted number of projects, which are as little notable as the association (the sources are announcements about the releases of the different OS versions. Indeed, if the world is better off knowing about the existence of Asturix, it could be included as an item in some list of Linux versions, but it doesn't deserve a whole page, just to promote a minor association that shares the name of a dead software project. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maury Morkowitz. Your position is nearly (if isn't) a WP:JDLI attitude. You don't like this derivative, ok. It doesn't give you the right to attack without giving reasons. Only saying that is a NSOFT or ORG simply isn't enough (IMO, of course). All the reasons you say are opinions (not factual data). Your attitude is a classic WP:JDLI one. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 12:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of arguments in this and in the past AfD. But yes, I didn't say all: there's still the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, WP is also not for advertising your projects and WP is not your web-hosting to showcase your projects. Indeed, I think WP will be better without this page. It's not only the notability. But a page for an association namely related to a defunct OS customization is really not what the world needs. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny story. So, is Asturix my project? Please, stop lying. If you can't argue, don't make up. And your quote "Indeed, I think WP will be better without this page. It's not only the notability. But a page for an association namely related to a defunct OS customization is really not what the world needs" fits with a WP:JDLI attitude. I think I should use your quote as an example. Thanks for sharing it! Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's WP:JDLI; it's more an attempt to follow guidelines as closely as possible. And please, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Ansh666 18:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: the more I read about it, the more I dislike it. Richiguada, besides of been a single-purpose account, has created several profiles around the internet to promote Asturix, there's even a user in Asturix called richiguada, who self-identify as "Delegate of communication." That's huge COI and denying it doesn't make him look good. In Twitter and in Youtube that should be OK, but here is not the place for self-promotion.
That's completely false. Do you have any proof? Are you well? I think you are being "a little" paranoid. I created my Wikipedia account in 17 oct 2009 (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Registro/Richiguada), when I didn't know anything about Asturix, because it was a "user project". If you want to mix up,thing, you are free to do it. But, please, don't make up anything. Be polite. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agreed with Maury Markowitz above about following the rules according to its spirit, it's difficult to fit Asturix into them. For example, the No inherent/ed notability seems to apply quite well here to Asturix as an association. Is there any single source explaining why the association is notable? Or did Richiguada just think that since the OS is supposedly notable (it's not, but let's suppose), the association is also N? Because even then that won't be enough. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: as an alternative to a full-delete, we could delete the advertisement part regarding the association and merge some information about the existence of Asturix into some list of Linux distributions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asturix_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142170604"