Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOG 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 keep (weakly). Daniel (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOG Project

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. The opensource article is in advertisement mode, so it is not independent; plus, it's written by "School IT Director - Open Source Evangelist - Technology Enthusiast - Husband - Dad". The Admin magazine may or may not be reliable, but I can't find anything on "Mayank Sharma" that would indicate we should care what he thinks. Both sources are how-to's and Wikipedia is not, so it would be pretty difficult to write a proper article with them anyway. Independent search didn't yield enough for WP:GNG either. No independent product reviews. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exact track record of an individual contributor to a magazine is not relevant. The entire publication has to be evaluated for its reliability. I think the sources used here are fine to use. They are independent, reliable, secondary and give significant coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is indeed not a WP:HOWTO, but that does not mean that sources written as a HOWTO cannot be used for sourcing the facts in an article. I have added another source from Tecchannel, which is a German publication by International Data Group and one from Linux.com (which was published during the time they seem to had paid editors). I have replaced the reference to Admin Magazin to a link of the same article published in Linux Magazine, which has its own article on the English Wikipedia and might be more suitable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to meet WP:GNG and is not overly promotional. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing has been improved since the deletion nomination. I don't agree with the dismissal of Linux Magazine, it appears to be a reliable source. I think the sources now present are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This, one of the new sources and currently no. 4 on reflist, ends with I have created a script that does all of this for you. If you would like to ha ve a copy message me and I will share it will you.[sic] I know we have a soft spot for open source projects but is this really the standard of sourcing we ought to have for notability? I hope the remaining two sources are better. Something I didn't realise at the time of the nomination, because the sources are about "FOG", the software, which at least one of them names "FOG Project" also, our article is about the project not the product. So, either the article needs to be rewritten to be about the software or it still fails WP:NOTINHERITED as the sources only have passing mentions of it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because there is a 1:1 relation between the project and the software, I think the project is the better title anyway to avoid awkward disambiguation titles like FOG (software). The project might be the common name of the software as well (even though that might strictly be not correct). I don't think the inherited policy applies here, as the software is a big part of the project anyway and multiple sources have given in-depth coverage to it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. It appears to have been the subject of a study as well. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2021 (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.