Talk:TopologiLinux

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References[edit]

I've added a reference (Sharma 2008 May 7) to this article, and removed the "unreferenced" tag. I haven't given a "ref" link, in the appropriate format, to the appropriate part of the article; I'm leaving that up to someone who cares more about the niceties of Wiki syntax than I presently do.

This isn't the first time that I've come directly from outside Wikipedia (rather than from a link within another Wikipedia article) to an article of interest to me, only to find it tagged for deletion; but trying to delete an article on a Linux distribution is a new low. If such an article violated the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, the appropriate response would have been to question those policies and guidelines -- not to tag the article for deletion. Wikipedia is getting to the point where you have to work around the system in order to make the system work.

Nevertheless, I've supplied a reference to an online serial article, for the benefit of those who would like to save this article but are not as thoroughly disaffected (and disgusted) with the current policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as I am.

User:Neuromath —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added another reference (Gacek and Arief 2004 Jan/Feb) from Ningauble's contribution to the ongoing deletion debate and informal, unlinked Harvard references in the article's text.

Also, here is a link for CyberMedia,[1] the publisher of PCQuest[2] (in which Sharma 2008 was published), to help establish that PCQuest is a legitimate periodical, not a "blog". Its online home page even links to an offer to subscribe to the print edition.[3] (I don't think anyone is likely to question the legitimacy of IEEE Software.)

Neuromath (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Skroops - If you care enough to find the sources, do it properly.  Parenthetical citations look like crap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.17.113 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the deletion process[edit]

The deletion debate is over now — for the moment. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Deletion policy allows repeated attempts, at least after some time has passed — and the bar is quite high for recreation of a page once it has been deleted, even if it took repeated attempts to accomplish the deletion. Officially, Wikipedia:Consensus condemns "forum shopping", but there are no adequate safeguards against the "wear them down" and "catch them when they're not looking" approaches — and how could there be? All it takes is a five-day period when those who would defend an article are otherwise occupied, and the article is history. It doesn't even have to be the same people — just the same mindset. I've seen it happen — after previous successful defenses against deletion attempts, and after references were provided, just as they were for TopologiLinux. And in Wikipedia today, such travesties pass for "consensus"!

I doubt seriously that anything remotely resembling Wikipedia's "consensus" process can possibly work well for article deletion. Not so very long ago, inclusionists questioned whether articles should be subject to any routine deletion process at all. That debate is the one that needs to be renewed — not debates over the deletion of particular articles that have already been defended successfully against deletion.

The essay Wikipedia:Silence and consensus describes itself by saying that "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement WP:Consensus". Presumably the idea is that it is intended as a privileged source for interpretation of Wikipedia:Consensus, much as the Federalist Papers — while having no direct constitutional authority themselves — are treated in case law as a privileged source for the interpretation of the United States Constitution. That essay's "in a nutshell" summary is: "If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so"; it also says "it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus." That's questionable at best even for the editing of ordinary articles; for deletion processes, it is clearly unreasonable. Must we who disagree with deletion proposals check in every five days to make sure we will be able to say so again at the "proper" time? And if not, will the deletionists say that they had our consent for their actions? Not my consent!

I would like to believe that the future of this article on TopologiLinux is secure, but past experience provides little basis for confidence. And this problem points to serious flaws in several of Wikipedia's most basic policies and guidelines — including Wikipedia:Consensus.

—Neuromath (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous removal of content and tagging for "notability"[edit]

This edit was an example of the "wear them down" approach I referred to above. Note that content that helped to establish "notability" (even by Wikipedia's current unreasonable standards), and was of interest in itself, was removed in the very same edit where the article was tagged for alleged lack of notability. This edit was also an example of what is wrong with "Assume good faith", and of why Wikipedia's technical definition of vandalism is unreasonably narrow.
--Neuromath (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]