Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OpenHAB
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus . No consensus to delete at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted at openHAB four times, including at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenHAB and declined 6 times at AfD. See notes on the draft for more issues. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion at this time, which is not to say that I want to go on Record as saying “keep”. That AfD is both old and soft. There is a large amount of correspondence on the draft header. Move it to the talk page, where humans can have a normal threaded conversation. Get out of AfC, I advise the author, an old registered account, to userfy, and stay out of draft. DraftSpace is a place to waylay inept newcomers and spammers bringing junk, and it is not a place where there is a culture of helping. Existing wikipedians can and should draft directly into mainspace. Do that when you think the reasons for the AfD delete decision are overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This should have been tagged for G13 between 1 July and 6 January. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete unless a neutral editor is ready to take up the challenge of making this into a candidate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Author of the article mentioned coverage on heise.de: there are 3 articles published in the German ct magazine (online versions available on heise.de behind pay-wall, but look like solid RS: [1]). I also found several news/articles on other sites: pro-linux.de [2], [3], [4]; linux-magazin.de [5]; root.cz [6], [7]. Although I´m not sure pro-linux.de is RS (site claims to have staff and publisher, but looks like one man project now), there are more than enough good RS to estabilish notability. However, the article is in a bad shape (most of its content has no references) and I know next to nothing about this topic (too new/fresh for my taste). I could create a well sourced stub (starting with TNT...), but not much more. Pavlor (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I am the original author of the article and the project lead of openHAB. You might noticed that I haven't involved myself in the editing of the draft for the last 4 years in order to avoid any doubts about neutrality. The content has since then been fully revised by other independent editors, so I'd claim there isn't anything from me left in it. Please also note that most AfDs were from 2014 and the latest from May 2017, while most of the current content (including links to notable sources) were added in June 2017. Should the draft be resubmitted as none of the current content has actually ever been considered in the discussion? Pavlor is right: There is a pretty good coverage on heise.de (see [8]) with more than 10 articles even without any paywall. There are also many (afaik >50) hits on research gate for academic content (e.g. [9]) and there is even a book about openHAB announced by an independent and large German publishing company ([10]). I hope all this helps to reconsider the notability question. I will myself continue to refrain from any voting or changes to the content, but I hope that I can help on the clarification. One last note: I was offered a paid editing of the article last year (see [11]) and as a result of this, the article was picked up by independent editors and fully rewritten (all the changes you see from June 2017). On the linked page, TParis (being a member of the wikipedia custodians, if I am not mistaken) claimed that he very much thinks that there should be an openHAB entry and offered to help on structuring it so that it fully meets the expectations - unfortunately, he himself seemed to be hesitant as he feared false accusations about paid editing. Xthirtynine (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.