| Revision as of 22:43, 30 June 2017 editPavlor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,779 edits Article update← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:31, 1 July 2017 edit undoLight2021 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,471 edits →ZoneMinderNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :: {{reply to|SL93}} Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Misplaced Pages. What about the sources I posted above? ] (]) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) | :: {{reply to|SL93}} Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Misplaced Pages. What about the sources I posted above? ] (]) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::'''Changed to Keep''': My vote is changed to keep per those sources. ] (]) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) | :::'''Changed to Keep''': My vote is changed to keep per those sources. ] (]) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::: You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here. ] (]) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:31, 1 July 2017
ZoneMinder
- ZoneMinder (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)
Non-notable piece of software. No independent sources, and a search for them doesn't reveal any either. Ritchie333 13:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Linux Format magazine (issue 110, October 2008, p. 112) has full page tutorial about this application, there are passing mentions in other issues. I will look for online sources later. Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub. Ritchie333 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines. Pavlor (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't. Ritchie333 11:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Linux Format looks like reliable source (published magazine, staff writers, broader circulation), I don´t share your summary dismissal of platform centered magazines. Pavlor (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect Linux Format would review any software for any Linux distribution, good, bad or indifferent, so while it's perfectly acceptable to verify basic facts or to give a reliable opinion on it, I don't think you'd be able to get beyond a basic stub. Ritchie333 10:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Online sources: (infoworld.com), (heise.de; short news), (online version of the big article in LinuxUser magazine), (online version of the article in Linux-Magazin magazine). Pavlor (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- So go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep". Ritchie333 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend. Pavlor (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That might be what the book of rules say, but on a pragmatic basis if people supply trivial passing mentions in sources, without bolstering the article, you end up with an AfD closing as "no consensus" with an article that still looks rubbish. Ritchie333 12:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- As I promised, I updated the article with sources listed above. Note my English language skills are weak, someone should "anglicize" text I wrote - if the article is kept of course. Pavlor (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- That might be what the book of rules say, but on a pragmatic basis if people supply trivial passing mentions in sources, without bolstering the article, you end up with an AfD closing as "no consensus" with an article that still looks rubbish. Ritchie333 12:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- N.b. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the way the AfD closing works. But yes, using sources I listed to improve the article is on my to-do list - probably not before this weekend. Pavlor (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- So go and improve the article with them, otherwise the AfD won't close as "keep". Ritchie333 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not significant enough to adhere Wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete: I found this book source, but that is certainly not enough and might not even be much of anything. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Misplaced Pages. What about the sources I posted above? Pavlor (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources. SL93 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- You must be joking about such sources, Some random book published by to promote something, only one source does not make anything to Encyclopedia significant. else we will be writing thousands of articles here with one source alone. We are not making journals, books or blog here. Light2021 (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep: My vote is changed to keep per those sources. SL93 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SL93: Publisher is Lulu Press, Inc. = "an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform". This company will publish anything you throw at it, so not much RS for Misplaced Pages. What about the sources I posted above? Pavlor (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)