Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library/Archive

TM'd images[edit]

I have removed the images that incorporate other corporations IP until the licensing issues etc are resolved. In addition, the infobox should contain a screenshot - not a table of logos. Verbal chat 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's true that by convention a screenshot is included in the infobox but TurnKey is not your typical distribution. It's an appliance distribution. Having a table of appliance logos in the same space is more communicative which is why I replaced the screenshot. LirazSiri (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The icons have been deleted so I can't see what the table looked like and decide if it was better than the old screenshot. I'm going to guess it looked like a small version of the icon table on the TurnKey site. If so I agree with others that it's unusual but given the unusual nature of the project I might support it, if the IP issues can be resolved. The old screenshot just shows Webmin which isn't the focus here...Smdyson (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

The Deletion Review of this article agreed that notability had been established though sufficient sourcing. See, as well, The 2009 Infoworld BOSSies. Is there any serious disagreement remaining as to notability? If so, we can look for additional sources or seek a decision at AfD. If the topic is not notable, it's no use cleaning up the article, it would be a waste of time. First things first. If there is no objection, the notability tag can be removed, clearing the way for further work. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm happy enough to take it to AfD (and had considered doing so but thought I'd try tagging it first). -- samj inout 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You can do that, Sam, but I'd suggest some discussion here first. Given the DRV and sources (remember, it was the third DRV after a speedy by an administrator, and after article improvement outside of article space), it's unlikely to succeed. It's been long enough that it would not be an abusive renomination, my opinion. So what is the basis for your opinion? --Abd (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Normally I wouldn't bother... I don't see it in many (read: enough) reliable sources and while I'm inclined to set the bar lower for open source projects the reason I'm here at all is because links to this article started popping up in a handful of articles & categories I tend to from time to time. Given they have shown no signs of quitting any time soon it seems the best way to dispense with the problem is to erase it. -- samj inout 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Alleged misbehavior on the part of an editor is absolutely no reason for deletion of an article. Ever. And, by the way, please take a look at User:SamJohnston/Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime. Notice, in particular, "Remember that conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Have you changed your mind? Why? You were more or less right, except that the only legitimate cause for deletion is lack of notability; other problems with the article call for cleanup, not deletion. --Abd (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh.... Sj hasn't changed his opinion. He doesn't want to delete just because of COI, he wants to delete because of other problems arising from COI (the COI editor adding links on other pages). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So, COI editor adds links to this article from other articles. Whether these are appropriate or not -- I'm in no position to judge yet -- how does this affect the notability of this topic? For every article on Wikipedia, there are people who are COI. COI editors will tend to promote their POV, it's expected, and that's why we have WP:COI. If LS is abusively editing, the solution would be to warn him, and it should not be done by SJ, who is clearly way too involved. And then if he continues, improperly, he can be blocked. This has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of TurnKey Linux and whether or not Wikipedia should have an article. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually believe the subject is not verifiably notable, but so are many others. The thing that draws my attention to this particular one is that it is causing serious problems elsewhere by breaking copyright and trademark laws, stuffing inappropriate categories with images, modifying informative templates, etc. Had they not repetitively injected themselves into categories and templates I care about I'd probably have never noticed they were even here. But they did, and had the gall to take it to WP:ANI when I tried to fix it. -- samj inout 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to back up samj by saying that some links to this have appeared where they aren't really justified. Doesn't justify killing the article, more a sign that the cloud computing category needs tweaking, which is something I will do. Looking at this article, here are my problems: it's mostly marketing and appears a historical list of product releases mixed with press releases. I'd like to some discussion of how the images are created, how the need to configure is addressed, how they are kept up to date. This would be interesting and useful. Knowing what version shipped in 2008 isn't. Really. SteveLoughran (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that notability was decided over a year ago when the article was undeleted. Since then the project has gotten even more links, including that award.Smdyson (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)