Misplaced Pages

Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 25 February 2010 (→Tag removal: thanks. Verbal.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:52, 25 February 2010 by Abd (talk | contribs) (→Tag removal: thanks. Verbal.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Deletion review

By unanimous decision on deletion review this article has been restored. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29 for further details.

Pity. I've just spent 1/2 hr cleaning up image/category spam. -- samj in 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source supporting notability

English sources

Non-english sources

I didn't add these sources to the body of the proposed article because they are not in English, but they should still count towards notability:

RfC: How can this proposed article be improved?

This article was rewritten based on an earlier article that was deleted in a rather messy affair instigated by an anonymous IP vandal.

From: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_61#Notability criteria for entries on free software projects?

I don't see that anyone noticed that the speedy deletion tag was placed by an IP editor, but I haven't read all the reams of discussion this generated. This affair is a poster boy for requiring AfD when speedy deletion is contested. Simple enough, and far, far less contentious. (AfD can be bad enough). Contested speedy deletion, if undeletion is refused, isn't speedy, and it's much harder for a "losing editor" to accept. I requested the article undeleted and userfied so that people can see it, it's now at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, and one of the first things I noticed was that the db-spam tag was added by 87.196.76.86. The IP geolocates to Portugal, and it may or may not mean anything that the editor also nominated NUbuntu (speedy denied), and quite inappropriately removed Alinex, a Portuguese distribution, from List of Ubuntu-based distributions. In four minutes on January 29, this anonymous editor created quite a splash. Maybe it's about time the IP gets credit for this. Is this the same editor who tenderly expressed some wishes today with a series of edits, including ? In any case, I suspect there are some lessons to be learned from this affair, so I'm starting a page, User:Abd/Open Source notability to examine the issues that LirazSiri attempted to raise here, without all the shouting. Anyone interested, join the salon. Be nice. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have a potential WP:COI with this article, since it describes a project I co-founded and contribute to. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines that doesn't preclude me from editing/writing the article but I understand I have to be careful. I've tried my best to neutralize how this effects my judgment and edit the article from a NPOV, but just to be on the safe side I am requesting comments. LirazSiri (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


LirazSiri requested that I take a look at this RfC. I'm sorry to report that when I said that my real concern was with the process and I wasn't certain of my own opinion about the notability of the article, I was serious. With the current articulation of notability on Misplaced Pages I don't think I can endorse this as WP:Notable - not because of anything it says in the article but because without having fleshed out better notability guidelines for OSS (which I think LirazSiri and Abd are correct that we need) I honestly don't think this topic can defensibly make the cut for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (And consequently, under the current guidelines many other Ubuntu distro articles technically ought to be deleted too, although I would want to postpone any such destruction of content until more attention is spent on the OSS-specific guidelines.)
One other bit of advice for LirazSiri: it might be an idea, if you have the time and wherewithal, to try fleshing out and organizing some entire category of articles that would include TurnKey Linux - all open-source operating system LiveCD distributions, for example, in concert with the development of OSS notability guidelines. This might help to convince the WP community that your efforts on the TurnKey article are borne genuinely out of an interest in improving Misplaced Pages and not solely for promotion of the software project. (Though of course I can't speak for anyone except myself. And if you're just completely fed up with Misplaced Pages at this point I would understand.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point I think the matter of TurnKey Linux's notability can be addressed separately from the notability guidelines for open source projects. I would of course like to see a more sensible policy for covering open source projects, but from my research (summarized above) it seems TurnKey Linux is already in compliance with Misplaced Pages's general criteria for notability. I just wish these same guidelines wouldn't advocate the destruction of all open source projects who have not yet received such media attention. LirazSiri (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) comment refactored here from above previous paragraph, where it broke up SB's comment. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


I might do that if I had enough free time on my hands but competition from life and work prevents me from dedicating myself to single handedly crusading for open source notability on Misplaced Pages. I'm not fed up with Misplaced Pages but the community really needs to step up and get more people involved in a real discussion. IMO, Misplaced Pages is facing a real problem now that the bulk of the content has been written. Many of the people who were enthusiastically motivated to create seem to have left the stage and tipped the balance from "creationism" towards a destructive and irrational form of "deletionism". I'm only one person and I really don't want to be caught in the cross-hairs of this phenomena again. I've had enough of that for a life time. OTOH, I do hope that my contributions to User talk:Abd/Open Source notability will motivate others to pitch in and help as well. LirazSiri (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lack of specialised notability guidelines for OSS, I assume that the fallback position would be that of the general notability guidelines, would it not? In which case, the issue is whether or not it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm willing to accept the Information Week article (although it should be used as a reference, rather than as an "External link", and it would be easy enough to add it as one), but I'm not convinced of the Linux Devices article in terms of notability. So the main change I'd want to make is to find some more sources to show that TurnKey Linux has had sufficient coverage. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we would simply punt back to the GNG in a case like this. But I'd like to think that Linux Devices is a reliable source (if not a significant one) and between that and the Ubuntu newsletter that should cover a little more ground. Maybe those and the Information Week article makes "two" Significant Sources (but, then again, I'm a ruthless inclusionist). If nothing else this is the very bottom of what could pass for a supportable article. Very good work. I'd vote Keep and improve in an AfD. Padillah (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
What about the reliable non-English sources? Is there a rule I'm not aware of that says only English sources can be used to establish notability in the English Misplaced Pages? LirazSiri (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources need not be in English, though English sources are preferred. Google translations can be used (and referenced from Talk) or translations can be made by editors knowing the language. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to find more references. I did a Google News search and found: (Information Week); (tectonic); (in German; I can read German (with difficulty and with the help of a dictionary) so if you think this reference would add notability, I can extract some facts from it for you if you ask me to.) There may be other places you can find references: maybe look through some IT magazines or something. I tried Google Scholar and found a few extremely brief mentions of "turnkey Linux" but I think they were referring to the concept in general, not to this specific project. I hope this helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They are all three regurgitations from the same press release. Mind you, that they got a page at InformationWeek shows that they have some actual notability. Will be waiting for some independent sources.
P.D.: (notice the german one is a newsticker with little news and tibdits). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
More accurately, the media attention is all in response to the project's last release. Journalists receive an endless stream of press releases every day - they're THE standard interface between the media and various news sources. They (and the publication) still have to exercise editorial judgment and separate what is important from what isn't. These days most tech journalists just assume that if anything important happens they'll get a press release about it, which unfortunately reduces their motivation to go out and explore on their own. That kind of sucks but its the way things are. BTW the non-English sources (infoworld, Ubuntu Linux france) happened well in advance of any contact the project had with the English-speaking media. LirazSiri (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Be sure to review the criticisms at DRV: . Some of them are moot; Here, LirazSiri's COI is totally irrelevant; presumably consensus will be found here on the best article, most bullet-proof against AfD, before it moves back to mainspace. We can decide at that time what procedure to follow. The DRV was withdrawn, so we could go back there, if asking the deleting admin, nicely, to allow return doesn't come up with a satisfactory answer. Or, probably better, it could just go back to mainspace, because there never was an AfD on this; if it is properly sourced, etc., at that point, the speedy criteria should be even more questionable, and there may be no admin willing to speedy it. In which case, done. Please do not move the article back to mainspace without consultation here, and LS, you should not be the one to move it back, period. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. After doing a bit more research regarding reliable sources who covered the project I feel confident that the evidence speaks for itself. LirazSiri (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Good job. I think InformationWeek is a good reference to have, probably enough to meet notability requirements. I find the subject matter relevant and notable but this is my personal opinion. You may want to post on the Computer reference desk to talk directly to wikipedians that are involved in IT - but the deletionists would probably (cynically) claim you're forum shopping or some such. Abd is correct you should not personally restore the article to mainspace, but again there is a small question as to whether ultimately it should go straight to mainspace or if we should be going through Deletion Review. If Misplaced Pages functioned properly you should be able to go straight to mainspace; trouble is, most deletionists won't stop and think, they'll simply speedy delete citing "reposting of already deleted content". Therefore it might be 'wiser' to go through Deletion Review. Sigh, the system stinks. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As I understand the guidelines, previously deleted articles are open to speedy if they are not substantially different from what was originally deleted. Having compared the two versions, I believe that this article is sufficiently different. In addition, CSD G4 doesn't apply to previous speedy deletions, anyway (although the normal solution is just to argue that the original reasons for speedy deletion still apply, so it is a moot point). Thus the two questions to me are whether or not the article, as it stands, is blatant advertising (I'd say not), or if it has failed to signify why the subject matter was important (I'm presuming the coverage makes that case).
At any rate, DRV may be the way to go, but as it is substantially different the question isn't whether an old deletion should be undone, but whether a new article is ok. I'm not sure that this is the correct role for DRV, but I may be wrong there. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we nominate a proposed article for DRV? Also, from what I've read the correct procedure is to move back to mainspace when reliable sources become available. It doesn't have to go through DRV to get back into Misplaced Pages. LirazSiri (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the new sources, the best thing would be moving to mainspace and then inmediately nominating to AFD. (however, I'd wait a few months to see if new sources appear on the meanwhile. The article could fail AfD in its current state) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think it might fail AfD? It cites multiple reliable sources. Is my bias blinding me to something? LirazSiri (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it because most sources look like passing mentions, name checks (blindly covering all packages released in a certain week/month independently of their relative importance) and press releases. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far. The InformationWeek article is based on a press release, presumably, but it also has a byline and would normally speak to notability. The Inforworld.nl article isn't too bad, either - it predates the March press release, I believe, so I'd count it separately. That aside, predicting which way AfD will go is a tad tricky. One or two more good articles would make it a whole lot safer, and I don't see much need to rush. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, AfDs are tricky, and waiting would be wisest --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

Tags exist to encourage discussion of article problems. Simply adding tags to an article without describing the problems, if the problem is obscure and not blatantly obvious, is less than useless; it makes for an ugly encyclopedia page with no redeeming value. An editor placed tags on this article, another removed them, and the same editor just restored them. I have reverted this, but if the editor will detail the objections here, and if they are not objections that were already addressed, I would personally allow the tags. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the tags as they seem fairly obvious. Someone with a clear COI has been heavily involved, so the text needs review. The notability of the products seem to be questionable, and the article seems akin to an infomercial at present. It is now tagged appropriately. By "I would personally allow the tags" I assume you mean self revert? Verbal chat 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Verbal. I meant that I would not object. Self-revert, maybe. I would also have consented to reversion by the other editor, if he had justified the tags in Talk, but that other editor is running on the edge as to revert warring, and it was better that you did it. I was objecting to blanket tagging without comment on Talk. You have now commented. And this has been happening across a number of articles and pages. I'm not attached to some conclusion. (COI with volunteer projects is a bit edgy, i.e., not so totally clear as if there were a financial interest, but I've advised the editor to act as if he has a COI.) --Abd (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

TM'd images

I have removed the images that incorporate other corporations IP until the licensing issues etc are resolved. In addition, the infobox should contain a screenshot - not a table of logos. Verbal chat 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)