Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki (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 Keep. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Foswiki (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)
DRV from 6 Dec 2009 & RFD 23 March 2012


OK, the original author of this article is refusing the accept the consensus that this should be a redirect and is now edit warring to remove the redirect and restore the article. Since this has been through AFD, DRV and RFD recently there is absolutely non consensus for this and the sources are still inadequate. Please can we delete, redirect and salt the redirect please. Since the original author is disputing the consensus I believe it more appropriate to put this through AFD again then seek page protection. Note on sources:

  • [1] This is only a comment by a foswiki user on an article about TWiki that does not mention Foswiki in the body
  • [2] this does not mention Foswiki at all
  • [3] This is a conference wiki and the page referenced doesn't mention foswiki Spartaz Humbug! 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I started the discussion on Foswiki Talk Page, I'm not refusing to accept the removal of the article. I'm refusing to accept the remove of the article with no discussiong. Please see the Foswiki talk page Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, sorry about misspelling your nick. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following comments removed from my nomination, its extremely rude to insert your commentary inside the body of someone elses commentary as it breaks the flow. Don't do it again. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, :) again the same problem, this article if from 2007, before foswiki was created. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, of course it doesn't mention foswiki :) , the conference was in 2006, much before foswiki was created (the fork was in the end of 2008). Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your energy would be better off finding some sources that do mention this wiki then because otherwise this will be deleted again. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stop inserting your comments insider the body of my nomination. Its incredibly rude and I already asked you not to do this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the problems in TWiki approach that was fracturing the community, if you accept is a mention it indicates that TWiki problems that lock the community out of the project (literally, they reset all passwords). The name foswiki was choose a few days later of this article on cnet. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then this source should be used on Twiki not to justify keeping Foswiki. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither to justify removing the foswiki article :) Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that here is the right place to go on with the discussion. So I'm coping what I said in Foswiki Talk Page to here:

Wikipedians, I am not a foswiki developer (or even an user for that matter) but I believe Wikipedia standpoint doesn't hold anymore. The discussion made 3 years ago was that foswiki was only a fork of Twiki. This fact isn't true anymore. I check those facts: Foswiki had 15 releases since the project started; it has an user base and a healthy community of developers. I talked to them on #foswiki on irc.freenode.net and they were very polite and helpful. So I ask to remove the AfD flag on this article. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have our own inclusion standard and nothing you have said meets it. If you want to keep this then you need to look at finding some better sources and really you should have done this before edit warring over the redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, sorry about commenting inline I will move my comments here. 2 out of your 3 links were before the fork and the other one (the first article from cnet) were from when the community started having problems with the TWiki and were forced to created the fork. It doesn't mention foswiki because the name of the fork was choose a few days later. So your sources are outdated or they are explaining why the community had to do the fork (it is not in the article but the community were locked out of the project, literally, they change all passwords in the wiki and in the version control system). But lets keep focus in this discussion, my point here is not about the merits of the both sides during those events but that foswiki has became a project on itself with 15 releases and a healthy community (I checked those facts). I'm not a foswiki developer (or an user). I'm trying to improve wikipedia not foswiki. As I mention to Hans Adler 2 years ago (on TWiki talk page) this is the first time that I didn't find the right information on wikipedia. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: I notice is that the RFD discussion took place on the 23th of march, and during that time (And in all non-deleted history) the page has always been a redirect. The current content was not added until 19 April 2012‎. In effect this means that the current consensus for a redirect only applied to the situation as it was back then, which has since then changed. Unless i am missing something i would say that there is currently no concensus regarding either keeping or removing the article as this redirect consensus does not apply to the current situation. Equally the AFD and DRV date from 2009, and are therefor not exactly up top date either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, back when the fork happened, some guys wanted the Twiki page to be about the fork (their argument was that the fork was the real project, since all developers but 2 went to work for the fork), this is not the case here anymore, my request is to have both pages, the twiki page and a Foswiki page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the person adding content to show there is a consensus for it to be included. The existing consensus is that we don't have an article because there is not adequate sourcing. This was upheld at DRV. That is the consensus until someone forms a new one. The redirect was agreed just a week or so again. So again, there was no consensus to recreate this. There are still no sources. Nothing, Nada, Nichyevo, Nowt etc etc. Until someone demonstrates a new consensus than nothing has changed the existing consensus is that we don't have this. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the inclusion standards, Foswiki has much notability as many other software pages in wikipedia, like this simple and with a really small user and community base open-source todo list Taskwarrior, or Things, a commercial task manager for mac. Just to cite two. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it with some sources. Go on I dare you. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excirial, Spartaz, all the 3 sources mentioned in this page as of a proof of foswiki non-notability were wrong (2 were from before the fork and the other one (from cnet) explained why the fork happened (it doesn't mention "foswiki" because the name was created a few days later). I checked that foswiki had 15 releases since then and that it has a friendly and alive community. How should we proceed from here to reach consensus on this? Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are proof that this wiki has no sources so of course its evidence that this should be deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foswiki as a separate article. It is a project with community activity. I checked the releases and the community. About notability most softwares has notability in the their niches. It a long tail effect. Foswiki has much notability as most of the softwares with wikipedia pages, like Taskwarrior, or Things. I'm not saying that the cited examples are not important but that they are important in their niche instead of having general notability. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Twiki, as it was before. No sources indicating notability independent of Twiki and I didn't find any on a search that did the same. Leave the page as a redirect, protect it and leave a note on the Foswiki talk page with the reasons it is a redirect and point editors interested in a separate article to WP:DRV but note they need to meet that independent notability requirement. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravensfire, do you think Foswiki has less notability than Taskwarrior, Pine or Ion? None of those software have have general notability but they are know for DIY task managers users, unix email clients user (old school I have to add :)) and tiled window manager users. We can argue about Foswiki general notability (we can even say wiki software in general don't have general notability) but we can not argue Foswiki's notability in the enterprise wiki software. Just my 2 cents (and thank for your vote, lets not forget that everybody here is a volunteer) :) . Jonas Fagundes (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pine? Seriously? This isn't about any other article - it's about Foswiki and only Foswiki. If there are other articles that don't meet WP:GNG, feel free to nominate them (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But Pine? Come on, that's just funny to even think about questioning it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ravensfire, I agree with that this discussion is about Foswiki software and not about any other software but my point is that none of them have general notability but have niche notability and that Foswiki is has more notability than them. Software is a very specific niche and most of then will never have a book or a printed article about then. Should we delete their wikipedia article? In my opinion no and Foswiki deserves have its owon page. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. No secondary sources exist, no notability proven. Jonas Fagundes is making Chewbacca defense-style arguments in his rabid attempt to keep the article, and it ain't working. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • TenPoundHammer, you say that my argument is a fallacy and at the same time try to talk in the name of everybody else? :) (This a hasty generalization fallacy). Could you show where am I using ignoration elenchi fallacy? I said that foswiki has relevance in its niche and my arguments were clear an simple. You can agree or disagree with my arguments and I will accept your opinion in any direction. But to say that I tried to confuse instead of proper argumentation is not correct or productive. Anyway, thank your vote. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far, none of your arguments have satisfied WP:GNG. You're basically saying "but it's notable! I know it's notable because it's notable!" and not proving yourself. Where are the secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • TenPoundHammer, did you understood my point about general notability vs niche notability? Understanding doesn't mean agreeing with me on this vote, only that you understand the point I'm making (better explained I'm asking about your understanding, not your acceptance of my argument here). If you do, you can see that I'm not using a tautology, if you don't let me know what part is confusing you, so I'll try my best to clarify it. Jonas Fagundes (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient sourcing to establish notability; as above, excluding the cites to foswiki.org itself, we are left with only a few cites; the only reliable sources among these either don't mention this project, or have only incidental mention. Dialectric (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are still not enough sources that give a substantial mention to this piece of software and demonstrate that it meets the requirements of general notability. Most of the references given in the article's current state cannot be used to verify key facts. For example, there is a one sentence honorable mention in the article "Black Duck honors best of 19,000 new open source projects" that is cited, but that's it. In short: yes, Foswiki is gaining prominence. But there are still not nearly the number of substantial and reliable sources as there are about TWiki, MediaWiki, or other notable wiki software projects. Steven Walling • talk 23:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foswiki - please don't delete - A Considered Perspective First, although I've been using the 'net for 30 years and I've been using Wikis since the idea came around, I'm not up on all the process/procedure of Wikipedia. So, if I top-post when I shouldn't, or comment where I shouldn't, or say I intend to do something when I'm not supposed to say I intend to do things, I apologize for not knowing how to play by your rules. I'm here to provide perspective on this particular issue. Wikipedia administrators, interested parties, Foswiki devs, TWiki devs, etc. - PLEASE don't "pigeonhole" me on this issue as anything other than one of the guys who helped make BOTH of these tools what they are today. I love TWiki, and I love Foswiki - they're both like children to me. Children who fought each other tooth and nail, but children none the less. Foswiki is real. Its significant. Its different than TWiki in major ways. It started as a fork, and when it forked, it was almost indistinguishable. Today, the two projects are VERY different. Take a look: http://www.ohloh.net/p/Foswiki - to minimize that and say "it's just a fork of TWiki" is like saying Fedora is just a fork of RedHat. Let's see... RedHat gets its own page, AND a page for Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux ... AND a page for Fedora_(operating_system) too. I urge you all to KEEP Foswiki as a separate page, and NOT redirect it to TWiki, and NOT delete it. And I urge proponents of BOTH wikis to refrain from disparaging the other one, or writing "XYZ is dead" articles, etc. and simply code what they're going to code, and let their work speak for itself. (i.e. apply WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND globally) Thanks for your consideration. —pbr 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • pbr, nice to know that you are a twiki developer, thank you for your open source contributions. Your vote will not be counted if you don't format it properly: How to Vote, I formatted it for you but feel free change it again if you prefer. Jonas Fagundes
  • Blah blah blah, filibuster, blah blah blah other articles exist, blah blah blah it's important, blah blah blah it's unique. How can I get this through to you?! WE. NEED. RELIABLE. THIRD. PARTY. SOURCES. OR. THE. ARTICLE. WILL. NOT. CUT. IT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out, not so much by way of argument, but for context, that the criteria for software appears to be applied rather unevenly. In the case of wikis, we find listed with no deletion debates the insignificant wikis like UseModWiki and WackoWiki (no references at all), and DokuWiki, SamePage, Gitit, Redmine and CLiki (only internal references). Those wikis play no role in the internet of today and little in the internet of yesterday, but are documented thoroughly on Wikipedia. Foswiki and TWiki both have an significant presence not only in numbers of sites, but both run some of the largest wikis in the world, e.g. Foswiki on the University of Minnesota institutional wiki, and on the gigantic internal Yahoo wiki. The problem is little journalism is done on wikis, and these easily verifiable facts constitute the problematic "original research" which Wikipedia is wise to deprecate. Yes, the lack of verifiable third party references is a problem. But it would be most odd if Wikipedia were to continue to document projects such as WackoWiki, which I do not expect would find any change in its notability, but users searching for widely deployed wikis like Foswiki were to come up empty. What's the solution? I'm not offering it. Perhaps it's time to clean house in the Wiki world. But for projects which are notable in deployment but not in an encyclopedic sense, I'd err away from the deletionist argument. Obviously others have different preferences. I'll decline to state an actual "vote" as I think the issue deserves a more full airing, but I think my sympathies are clear. 74.79.147.25 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Source it or lose it. Nothing else matters. Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Per Dondegroovily, that was uncalled for. What I should say is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you are probably right that some of the other stuff needs deleting too. You are welcome to do that but I'm not entirely sure many people would thank me if I went through all the unsourced cited articles here and nominated them for deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, that incivility was completely uncalled for. 74.79 presented an intelligent and reasonable discussion of the issue unlike many other users at this discussion and I felt that his comment was valuable here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources/references added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.111.79 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the arguments of those who want to delete the Foswiki article (or redirect it) are: "quality of sourcing" (Ravensfire) - "no notability proven", "Where are the secondary sources?" (Ten Pound Hammer) - "Insufficient sourcing to establish notability", "the only reliable sources among these [...] have only incidental mention." (Dialectric) - "not enough sources that give a substantial mention to this piece of software" (Steven Walling)

Please check the new sources! At least the following ones are IMHO high quality secondary sources which cover Foswiki substantially: See this, this, this, this and this and please re-examine the validity of your arguments.

And, if I may add, not as an argument to keep the Foswiki article, but to not lose track of the goals and values of Wikipedia as a whole: Compare the references and the value of the Foswiki article to the references and value of articles you submitted yourself to Wikipedia. Judging by "your" articles your interests are in chart hits, music albums, malls, sheep and other interesting topics. Fine with me, but remember that others are interested in other things, e.g. Wiki engines (e.g. see references). And they do not only want to know that there are wikis (albums, malls, sheep), but which wikis there are, what characteristics they have, and which one might fit their purposes.

So it seems to me that there IS interest in articles like this about Foswiki. There are even WikiProjects that want to "Document the Internet's common protocols and popular technology", to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of all software-related articles" and to "Improve Wikipedia's coverage of Perl by expanding existing articles and creating new ones."

So, please prove that all the sources mentioned above are not notable. If you don't:

  • Keep: the recently added references (21 April 2012 and later) show that Foswiki is used, reviewed and referred to. ArthurClemens (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC): — ArthurClemens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Tho the above user may have not made edits outside this topic, what he says is perfectly correct: the current sourcing is fully sufficient. I think that since this is the area where Wikipedia won its reputation for reasonable usefulness, and we should endeavor to be reasonably comprehensive and continue our strength. But whether or not you agree with giving this field any distinctive status, by our normal standard, it fully meets ourt ordinary requirements. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to TWiki, per WP:NSOFT, WP:TOOSOON. I found a couple more occurrences, but wouldn't consider them enough to keep the article at the present time.[4][5][6] If there were more unique content, a merge would be inappropriate, per WP:UNDUE. But having compared the two articles, some content is duplicated. Therefore, any merged content could summarise the differences/developments. A standalone article would be appropriate when more refs are available. -- Trevj (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foswiki_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1146435878"