Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix8

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix8

[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. Recreated immediately after PROD deletion. W 42 22:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W 42 22:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification
Hello everyone,

for several days I was creating a draft of the article named "Fix8". I noticed that the existing page was referencing a non-existing company

and the link to the company website was pointing to a completely unrelated product.

So I asked for the old page to be deleted.

After a week, the page was gone, so I moved the already finished draft content into the now available page for a new article to be created.

Here is the original draft I created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fix8_(software)

I hope I didn't do anything wrong.Nemase (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemase:You didn't do anything wrong, I'm just concerned that the subject fails our General notability guideline. There need to be multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Fix8 for an article to exist. I don't think that any of the sources in the article currently meet this criteria and I was unable to find any on a cursory search. If you can show that this subject meets that criteria, the article will be kept. W 42 23:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Winner 42:I added three more references from press releases regarding the Fix8.

I would also like to point out something I heard from one advocate of free and open software who said that it is quite common for open source projects not to have good references because open source projects are not end user scenarios.

Take for instance a number of existing wikipedia articles about other open source projects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickFIX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normaliz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waarp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_(software) Nemase (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hi everyone ... I am the creator of the article and I would like to repeat that open source projects often don't have the same degree of available references as for instance popular culture or science articles (again, see the examples above). Nevertheless, the subject of this article (Fix8) is well known within the fintech open source community and is well established with many users over the years. The added references should confirm that fact. Nemase (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet our notability standard. Anybody who needs a FIX decoder can search for it on GitHub/Google. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley: as it happens I created a draft for another open source project article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FastFlow) that I submitted for a review and you declined that submission within 3 minutes (20:57 -- 21:00) from posting the above delete mark. You stated the same concerns about both articles. If you would be willing to spend more than 3 minutes of your time, would you be so kind to take a look at (for what I see as an iconic and unquestionable free and open source project):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake

and let me know how is the notability of such an accepted article different from what I am trying to submit? I do not wish to question your methods in evaluating article submissions, but I would really appreciate if you could give us more substantial argument Nemase (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I am trying to apply is WP:NSOFT - we need significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It looks like there has been slightly more coverage of CMake than Fix8, but I would say that the CMake article is borderline in terms of notability. If you have any more questions, I would be happy to discuss via IRC chat. I'm online most of the time. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Salimfadhley: thank you for your quick reply, I do really appreciate it ... and also thank you so much for confirming my above argument. If CMake article is borderline in terms of notability and we are talking about a tool that is like water to every C programmer (they either actively use it or at least they are aware of it), then imagine how difficult (I would say definitely impossible) it is to satisfy the WP:NSOFT as you see it. My point is, as I mentioned above, that free and open source articles should merit some leniency when it comes to notability as you interpret it. Otherwise, one can immediately start removing about 95% of existing free and open source articles. Also, thank you for your IRC offer, but this discussion board should be the right and proper place to resolve the issue, where I wish other people would also join this discussion. Nemase (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Financial Information eXchange You also forgot QuickFIX. Both articles fail software notability as above, but can easily be merged into a new section for implementation in Financial Information eXchange. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Salimfadhley above. WP:SPA author likely has an undisclosed COI, so any future articles should go through AfC. 1292simon (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is no evidence of reliable and independent sources, I'll say that WP:GNG is not met. WP:NSOFT also suggest the subject is not notable. Nemase keeps referring to other, similar articles that exist on Wikipedia but that does nothing to establish the notability of this particular subject (per WP:WHATABOUT). Modussiccandi (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note here is the author again ... I just want to clarify that I am trying to propose several articles regarding free and open source projects because this is the area where I am comfortable writing about. I started with articles about core projects that I used over the years and am currently using on daily basis and feel that they should have a place on wikipedia. Fix8 was the first one, but I also created another one about FastFlow (link above) and I tried to go with it through AfC, but Salimfadhley marked both of them for deletion in one very fast swipe with (see above) in my opinion very poor arguments (btw. calling Fix8 or QuickFIX a simple FIX decoder is like saying that bicycle is a device with round objects). It is quite obvious that none of the editors took a look at the updated references I provided for both articles. I already prepared material for a third article about tailwind css library and wanted to make a draft that will go through AfC, but after this I have to say that I am deeply discouraged. Just to make clear, Fix8 was started by an Australian and a Russian, FastFlow is a project that grew from two Italian universities and tailwind css was started in Canada. I live and work in Vienna, Austria. I would also like to raise my concerns about competence of Salimfadhley in evaluating both of those articles. I sincerely think his work is very superficial and simply sloppy (his comments about CMake prove that beyond any doubt). Since it looks like this debate is soon to end, I would just like to politely ask the following editors, @Salimfadhley:, @KartikeyaS343: and @1292simon: to give us at least one example of recently accepted article about free and open source software that successfully went through AfC. I hope I am not asking for too much. Thank you for your time, even if it was just 3 minutes. And also, thank you @Footlessmouse: for what it looks like, the only constructive suggestion in this discussion.Nemase (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC is the required process for COI situations, and throwing mud at a neutral obsever isn't going to help your cause. 1292simon (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemase: Having read your above comment, let me add a few things to my previous comment. 1) Although you have said lots in this discussion, you refuse to engage the problem of the article: namely that it violates Wikipedia's (admittedly high) standards for notability. What we are looking for is coverage in reliable (i.e. reputable) and independent sources. Now, you keep referring to those sources you added in this edit. Two of them ([1] and [2]) about the subject's relationship with Saxo Bank. The other one is about them teaming up with Diamond Circle. Press releases are not considered independent sources on Wikipedia (see WP:NIS. So, your repeated mention of these sources does not show anything with regard to notability. 2) You point out that there are other articles about similar subjects on Wikipedia. While this is true, arguments like this are not very useful in a deletion discussion. Each article is to be assessed on its own merits and many articles have made it onto this project without meeting the guidelines. In an ideal world, each of them would have their own deletion discussion. But since we are discussing this particular article, saying things like "but you guys also admitted x article" is not particularly constructive (see WP:WHATABOUTX for details). 3) Speaking of non-constructive comments: You allege that Salimfadhley, 1292simon and myself are not constructive. We are all here in good faith, so please cut this kind of stuff. Allow me to say that your failure to actually engage in discussing the key question of notability might by some be seen as rather unconstructive. 4) Lastly, I understand that you feel that more leniency and leeway is needed for subjects such as this one. Perhaps you are right but this AfD is not the place to advance these ideas. What we try and do here is to consult Wikipedia's guidelines of which verifiably and notability are quite central and to determine whether a subject meets these guidelines as they are. With the sources that have been presented so far, Fix8 does not meet these guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi: Thank you for your elaborate and constructive comment. I have to say that I agree with everything you said and I really wish this appeared sooner. I would like to apologize to everyone (and especially to Salimfadhley) for my non-constructive comments and mud throwing. I really feel ashamed I did that and the only (not really good excuse) is that I do hope you understand the frustration I felt which I described above. I do understand you are all here in good faith and in the name of that good faith I would like to ask one last thing from any of the editors reading or commenting: can any of you recommend a single article about free and open source software that recently went through AfC and was accepted? I promise I won't comment on that, I would just like to have it as a future reference and I think it would also greatly help other editors reading this. Saying that, I do understand if you are unwilling to provide such example after this exchange. Once again, thank you for your time . Nemase (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2020 (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.