Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colemak (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 delete. Despite the influx of "keep" votes (and I mean 'votes', not '!votes'), the issues raised by the comments supporting deletion--specifically, that there are not a sufficient number of independent sources to confirm notability--are not addressed. Anyone confused about this should have a look through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --jonny-mt 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colemak

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Colemak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article on a new keyboard layout was re-created following a deletion review in which the consensus was "Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite." The arguments proposed in the review for re-creation were that if sources could not be found, it should be re-considered for deletion.

Now while at first sight the article appears to cite plenty of sources, out of these, no more than two at most meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources, and even then coverage is hardly "non-trivial" as Wikipedia's notability criteria require. The only academic study cited is an undergraduate dissertation that has not been peer reviewed; the Caps Off award was an obscure affair run by a private individual that, despite being advertised as a "million dollar" competition, raised less than 200 euros in the end; and inclusion in X11 and Ubuntu seems almost completely undocumented, apart from some comments in various Ubuntu forums and IRC chats. The only other sources cited are the article's own previous deletion debate here on Wikipedia and a blog entry by a Microsoft developer stating that they would not be including Colemak in Windows precisely because it is non-notable. Vquex (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup isn't the issue here -- it's admittedly fairly tidy -- the issue is that the sources don't conform to Wikipedia policy. Vquex (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- *Delete what random gibberish feature ISN'T included in x number of linux distros? Saying "this feature is supported by PurpleShoe Linux" is not useful or notable. Numbers of users is. Miami33139 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't supported just by "PurpleShoe Linux", it is supported by _all_ Linux distributions and _all_ BSDs that come with X.Org (i.e. practically all of them). It's not a feature that needs to downloaded and installed. it's something that comes preinstalled with the core operating system. It's displayed as option every time you install the operating system. Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that supposed to address the issue of insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources? Vquex (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Windows comes with US-101 layouts for each of dozens of languages it supports. Windows comes with half-a-dozen alternate US layouts, and three versions of Dvorak. The statement, "Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system." is wrong. Desktop Linux is not a mainstream operating system. An obscure layout on an obscure OS is not notable. Show the sources. Miami33139 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). No, no, no! Citing a previous deletion discussion as a source is not OK! (Incidentally, inclusion in Ubuntu and other Linux distributions is entirely a result of inclusion in X11. You don't get to count every distribution separately like that.) Zetawoof(ζ) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides Dvorak, it's the only keyboard layout to gain a significant amount of users. In fact, the Colemak forum is the most active community to discuss alternative keyboard layouts in general. Independent research from several sources has found it at least as good as Dvorak. The Colemak article is referenced from dozens of articles, and across multiple languages of Wikipedia. Coming as a built-in option in all operating systems with X.Org now and into the foreseeable future means it's not going to fade away anytime soon.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the number of users is irrelevant. (See WP:BIG). What goes on on the Colemak forums is also irrelevant, as that is a primary source and linking to forums is generally to be avoided anyway. (See WP:EL#AVOID point 10). As for independent research from several sources is concerned, perhaps you could enlighten us to what these sources are so that we can evaluate them? As I said, the paper by David Piepgrass is not suitable as it is a self-publised undergraduate dissertation that has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and blogs are not suitable either for the same reason. (See WP:SPS).
Now let's get another thing straight. X11. As User:Miami33139 said, a lot of random cruft finds its way into every Linux distro going. The chances are that getting Colemak included in X11 was not all that difficult. Any competent developer could easily submit a patch for it, and provided that it doesn't break anything the chances are that it will be included. I don't know what X11's criteria for inclusion are, but Wikipedia is not X11. The inclusion of Colemak in X11 is officialy undocumented -- I couldn't even find it in the X11 changelogs -- and the only discussion about it anywhere is on forums and IRC chat archives -- see my point re forums above.
My contention still stands, that there is insufficient coverage of Colemak in independent, reliable secondary sources, and since this is the case, it is not possible to construct an article on it that is larger than a stub without violating Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Vquex (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the CVS repository. I'm talking about the list on the X11 website of what's new. Even if it was listed there it still wouldn't count for anything because the X11 site is an open wiki and wikis don't count for anything in deletion debates (see WP:SPS). The issue at stake is that the sources cited do not meet the Wikipedia verifiability criteria. Nibbling at the edges of the points I have made does not answer anything. I want to see substantial coverage in the press, or in ergonomics/HCI literature, or in other sources that conform to wiki policy, otherwise this article will contain original research. Vquex (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a technicality, but please note the 'holds relevant Changelog there' fragment. The changelog was commited to CVS repository (and not a wiki) by one of X.org developrs, as the CVS is not writeable to the public. Since the X.org X11 is very modular, keybyard layouts are part of 'xkeyboard-config' package and related changes may not be listed in core X11 servers' changelog. 217.153.136.62 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but this still doesn't address my problem. Even if we did accept that that is a reliable secondary source, coverage is trivial. Vquex (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I understand the need to keep vanity pages off WP, I'm not quite sure if this is a good example of an evil abuse of WP, or that it deserves the strenuous argumentation you are giving it. You apparently have made only a tiny handful of contributions yourself, apart from this debate on a deletion. Presumably this is a secondary account -- may I ask what your other accounts are? Xanthoxyl (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith -- I did have another account once upon a time, but I lost the password for it ages ago, and I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet of any of the other "delete" votes. Look, I'm not saying this is an evil abuse of Wikipedia by any means. I'm just asking whether or not the community thinks that the sources are sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it all counts as original research, or even whether there is a consensus in the first place. Perhaps you'd care to comment on that particular question? Vquex (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Vquex (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm a Dvorak Simplified Keyboard typist, and this article was a timely addition to my search for efficiency. The WP vision is to capture all the world's knowledge in encyclopedic format. This article clearly contributes to that end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.50 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the referencing needs to be seriously improved, the novelty and inclusion in a broadly-distributed piece of software indicates that it has at least the potential to gain more mainstream citation in future, and there doesn't appear to be a suitable topic article that this one could be subsumed into for the time being (ergonomic keyboard layout or the like). Keeping this on my radar to see if I can improve it, having originally found it from a random Interweb posting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "broadly-distributed"? Does that include all 1600 downloads, who may never use it, or the 272 registered users of an internet forum, who also may be reading the forum, but not using the layout? If 1600 downloads gets you a Wikipedia article, download.com has a few million pieces of freeware to start articles about. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Inclusion in X.org is not significant; the us xkb file contains several alternative layouts, only one of which (Dvorak) has a large body of independently published criticism and review. Number of users is irrelevant; only published third-party documentation is relevant. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reliable third-party source: The Caps Lock Key -- Love it or Hate it? Barry Abisch, Worldnow. Qwfp (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only one I've seen -- it seems to be a duplicate of the only reliable source referenced in the article. Are there any others, that's what I'm asking? Vquex (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been established that these meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, nor has it been established that coverage is significant. Vquex (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hundreds of other layouts included in Windows are either minor European variants of Qwerty, different scripts (Asian languages, Arabic), or Dvorak. Colemak being included in a major OS makes it notable. (Miami33139, Linux is a major operating system, not an obscure one. Virtually all scientific computing occurs in Linux these days. Google have even released Google Desktop, Picasa, and Google Earth for Linux.) There's tons of Wikipedia article that require cleanup and "real" sources, but deleting them is not the answer. As Colemak gains prominence, more people will find this article and hopefully improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuneziglesias (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that this deletion debate has been discussed on the Colemak forms. [1] Vquex (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (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/Colemak_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137724477"