Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Lighting Project

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. Sandstein 07:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Lighting Project

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable group/project (Probably qualifies for CSD?) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Open Lighting Project a non-notable group/project?
1) We've linked to several trade magazines that we are mentioned or featured in.
2) We are also an organization that helps test and write ANSI standards for PLASA that are used worldwide. This is mentioned in the article and sourced as well.
3) We've been selected and participated in Google's Summer of Code for 3 years. Nightrune 17:38 PM 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка What specifically does it need more of? or less of? Higher quality links or more third party links? Nightrune

Delete: No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. What does this need? Links to reliable, third-party sources -- media sources, particularly. Has this project been featured in the tech sections of major newspapers or magazines, or in major industry journals? What we're seeing instead are blogs, the subject's own sites, and a whole lot of non-qualifying sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightrune The Linux Journal article is a decent one. The two LSA ones would be except they aren't about OLP, they are about other products - both have a mere one sentence mention. Find two or three more that are written by 3rd parties in media publications, and that are actually about OLP, and you could get people to change their minds. If they don't exist, then it may be that not enough people have 'noticed' it, which is what our WP:NOTABILITY standard is all about. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers Gaijin42 I believe there are more third party links we could add, and other articles I know that soon to be published. Nightrune 00:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There might or might not be articles currently in press. The problem is that right now, there is little to work with (WP:CRYSTAL). The only mentions I found are about the OPL being accepted at Google Summer Code. Tigraan (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2015 (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.