Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Routing Machine
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The result was speedy keep; both the nomination and the only delete !vote have been withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Open Source Routing Machine (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)
Changed opinion to weak keep per Anarchangel's sources; coverage is minimal but probably sufficient for notability. Sandstein 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still writing the article, FFS. Go away you deletionist busybody. What happened to good faith? People like you are ruining Wikipedia. Seriously. I started this article 15 minutes ago and you're already trying to delete it. And Wikipedia wonders why they're losing editors! It's because the Administrators are a bunch of useless do-nothings who won't allow for organic growth. Go ahead and delete this if you want to. If you do, I'm leaving. Congratulations. You've made Wikipedia not-fun enough to crush the spirit of a free culture enthusiast. Not to violate WP:NPA, but I do not like you and think you should seriously reconsider your attitude towards this place. I think you're the problem. Miserlou (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on the article talk page, you are free to start developing articles in your user space, but as soon as they enter main space, they must comply with our inclusion rules. You can still copy your work to User:Miserlou/Open Source Routing Machine, continue working on it there, and move it back to mainspace as soon as you are certain that you understand our inclusion rules and the article complies with them. Sandstein 20:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the wording of a reaction I understand all too well, it is perhaps understandable that "I'm still writing this page" is included as part of an argument that the rude words have a bearing on the chance of completion. You'll perhaps agree, however, that is somewhat ironic. I do not agree that tagging hours-old articles, much less nominating them for deletion, is valuable or sound practice, nor do I believe that an indignant reaction to that practice is an actionable indication of the future of an article. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on the article talk page, you are free to start developing articles in your user space, but as soon as they enter main space, they must comply with our inclusion rules. You can still copy your work to User:Miserlou/Open Source Routing Machine, continue working on it there, and move it back to mainspace as soon as you are certain that you understand our inclusion rules and the article complies with them. Sandstein 20:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still writing the article, FFS. Go away you deletionist busybody. What happened to good faith? People like you are ruining Wikipedia. Seriously. I started this article 15 minutes ago and you're already trying to delete it. And Wikipedia wonders why they're losing editors! It's because the Administrators are a bunch of useless do-nothings who won't allow for organic growth. Go ahead and delete this if you want to. If you do, I'm leaving. Congratulations. You've made Wikipedia not-fun enough to crush the spirit of a free culture enthusiast. Not to violate WP:NPA, but I do not like you and think you should seriously reconsider your attitude towards this place. I think you're the problem. Miserlou (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No sign of notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Note: This delete !vote has been withdrawn below. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep No hits in News or Books, but two in Scholar: https://www.legato.net/download/attachments/2555944/2011_FOSSGIS_Tagungsband.pdf#page=41 discusses the subject at length, and http://andreas-hubel.de/ba/ba_V2.0.pdf#page=17 gives it a more brief treatment, although with screenshots, and the authors saw fit to discuss it before any of the other similar items in their list. Anarchangel (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Keep - Per the sources provided by User:Anarchangel above. They're in German (which I'm not fluent in), but appear to cover the topic with sufficient detail to qualify as significant coverage.
- Also, quite importantly, the nominator should consider refraining from nominating brand new pages for immediate deletion. The article was created on 19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC), and was sent to AfD at 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC). See also WP:IMPERFECT. It's likely that this new article was found at Special:NewPages, and even if it wasn't, the advice there is stated as, ..."Don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users. Consider using Twinkle to welcome newcomers, and placing {{uw-draftfirst}} on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting;..." and ..."Articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will have added full content in their first revision;"...
- It's very poor form to try to delete people's work while they're still working on it. Also, per the wording of the nomination, I'm unconvinced that the nominator actually performed source searching to qualify the nomination to remove this article from the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that page's advice but disagree with it (it's not a policy or guideline): deficiencies in our articles should be addressed whenever one becomes aware of them, and unprofessional reactions on the part of authors are a problem only these persons are responsible for. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to those who want to keep the article to look for sources beyond a basic Google web and news search, which I performed. Sandstein 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be overly-technical, but WP:BURDEN refers to information within articles, and not the deletion of articles from the encyclopedia. See WP:DEL-REASON regarding reasons for deletion per Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Anyway, I noticed you revised the nomination as weak keep, so I'm adding the following comment... Northamerica1000(talk) 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that page's advice but disagree with it (it's not a policy or guideline): deficiencies in our articles should be addressed whenever one becomes aware of them, and unprofessional reactions on the part of authors are a problem only these persons are responsible for. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to those who want to keep the article to look for sources beyond a basic Google web and news search, which I performed. Sandstein 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – It appears that this nomination for deletion has been withdrawn, per the revision in which the nominator changed their opinion to weak keep. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there is still an outstanding delete !vote from SL93 (talk · contribs). If that user withdraws and no one else comes forth with a delete !vote then this can be speedy kept. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to weak keep. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there is still an outstanding delete !vote from SL93 (talk · contribs). If that user withdraws and no one else comes forth with a delete !vote then this can be speedy kept. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:27, 16 May 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.