613:
While I agree that LWN.net is reliable, I'm not convinced of either the multiple or the sufficient detail prongs. More coverage from independent sources is needed. I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage
660:
Allow me to rephrase: I did, in fact, get the narrow point you were making about LWN.net. I don't think it affects the larger point of whether or not there is actual multiple, independent sources that cover this program. I would question the suitability of Linux mailbox search tools as an article
365:
I'm quoting what they have on their website. You use the term "journalistic technique" but LWN has no jouralists employed and they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay. I agree though that the word "blog" is probably not appropriate but equally I cannot agree that
346:
in search of interesting developments to cover for our users" in place of the above, and it's clear that LWN.net is simply applying the same, traditional techniques to its non-traditional domain of coverage. With that objection to LWN.net as a source out of the way, the subject meets
374:
the topic is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources but that a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. This is still a single source and more is required.
322:
spend an unbelievable amount of time wandering the net in search of interesting developments to cover for our users. We also depend heavily on tips from our users; see the next section on how to send in something you have
167:
512:
developer, incidentally) Neil Brown as being distinct, for notability purposes, from the ones by LWN staffer
Jonathan Corbet. If you felt charitable enough to do this, and you've come to accept LWN as a
312:. From what I can see in the article, there's three references from LWN.net, a passing mention in a thesis, a blog and a list of "best Linux shell apps". The last three fail the criteria set out in
526:"In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article."
640:" Those links should make sense if you follow the threaded discussion above between me and HighKing. Please let me know if you're still puzzled. Please could you also consider supporting
342:
Calling LWN.net a blog on that basis is essentially a dismissal of journalistic technique, which traditionally depends enormously on shoe leather and tips. Substitute "Wandering the
120:
744:
and, I planned to comment sooner, I'll note that everything here is like a business listing and therefore WP:NOT applies, especially since there's then no actual substance.
590:
215:
822:
articles, into an article about mailbox search utilities, which is a fairly distinct category of software tools. This would be in accordance with the guidance given at
528:
Certainly, the LWN pieces are credible and provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Additionally, I understand them to be neutral insofar as there is no
532:
between the authors of the pieces on the one hand, and the developers of
Notmuch on the other. That being so, the coverage in LWN alone is arguably enough to meet
161:
638:
I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage from independent sources.
707:, especially if they address an actual topic, rather than simply containing a list or table. After all, if Knowledge (XXG) can legitimately have an entry on
410:. They do not just publish any random submissions. This is concordant with a fair number of other reputable mainstream or specialist periodicals.
127:
712:
17:
672:
621:
880:
858:
566:
935:
40:
598:
182:
93:
88:
149:
97:
757:
80:
869:
700:
662:
594:
462:
371:
313:
309:
143:
931:
577:
228:
36:
819:
680:
203:
139:
771:
745:
669:
618:
175:
839:
789:
762:
728:
675:
655:
624:
602:
581:
545:
477:
448:
383:
360:
333:
294:
280:
263:
235:
207:
84:
62:
815:
688:
823:
807:
696:
189:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
930:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
811:
810:
applies, then as a preferable alternative to deletion or userfication, I propose merging the
76:
68:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
913:
835:
785:
724:
708:
651:
541:
444:
356:
290:
259:
219:
881:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/writing-for-times-higher-education/418274.article
716:
704:
692:
691:. That being so, an article on mailbox search tools featuring those and Notmuch would meet
684:
533:
529:
518:
491:
458:
428:
416:
348:
251:
828:
consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context
199:
514:
483:
454:
436:
424:
420:
367:
859:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22shoe+leather%22+%22tips%22+%22journalism
774:, in what way is it like a business listing? Please could you also consider supporting
666:
633:
615:
252:
significant coverage in at least one reliable source that is independent of the subject
53:
470:
376:
326:
273:
155:
504:
The use of "usually" rather than "always" makes me think it would be fair for me to
114:
831:
781:
720:
647:
537:
440:
352:
286:
255:
423:, clearly it is. The subject has received significant coverage in at least one
870:
https://www.theguardian.com/info/contributing-to-the-guardian-and-observer
404:
they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay
502:
regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
318:
the premier news and information source for the free software community
198:
Insignificant program lacking coverage in independent reliable sources
891:
407:
719:? If you think I am mistaken, do please let me know how so. Thanks.
902:
715:, why not on mailbox search utilities, as long as the topic meets
509:
924:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
517:
then great: we've got multiple, in-depth, reliable sources, and
498:"Multiple publications from the same author or organization are
406:" LWN.net accepts free-lance contributions, but they only do so
388:
AFAICT, both of your objections about LWN.net are groundless:
665:
grounds (but that's hardly a definitive position). Thanks.
569:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
396:
370:. Finally - lets say that the website is acceptable - as per
317:
508:
you to regard the LWN article by freelance LWN writer (and
695:
too, and would appear to be entirely in the spirit of the
914:
http://www.latimes.com/la-trw-guidelines-story-story.html
110:
106:
102:
174:
453:
I'm leaning towards agreeing with you that LWN meets
320:
but is arguably a blog since the website states they
575:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
188:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
938:). No further edits should be made to this page.
427:and passing coverage in others. That suffices.
699:recommendation quoted below. I don't see that
591:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
216:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
589:Note: This debate has been included in the
214:Note: This debate has been included in the
588:
213:
435:require significant coverage in multiple
457:, thank you for the rebuttals. But both
395:". False: four staff members are listed
851:
316:. The LWN.net site describes itself as
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
486:. That's good to hear. As for source
776:
713:integrated development environments
642:
366:this website meets the criteria in
892:http://www.theatlantic.com/faq/#37
24:
687:, as far as I can tell; likewise
903:http://mg.co.za/page/contact-us/
814:article, together with my draft
482:Thanks for considering LWN as a
494:'s relevant remarks. It says:
393:LWN has no jouralists employed
1:
603:06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
582:02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
478:12:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
449:02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
419:is satisfied if LWN.net is a
384:14:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
361:18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
334:17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
295:18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
281:17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
264:01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
236:00:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
208:23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
63:16:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
840:22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
790:22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
763:18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
729:00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
703:applies to articles meeting
676:22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
656:22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
625:18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
546:00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
614:from independent sources.
955:
408:under editorial oversight
927:Please do not modify it.
285:LWN.net is that source.
32:Please do not modify it.
806:. If others feel that
272:Which source is that?
780:instead of delete?
661:subject solely on
646:instead of delete?
246:(or, failing that,
469:and not just one.
225:
709:operating systems
605:
595:Shawn in Montreal
584:
238:
221:
946:
929:
916:
911:
905:
900:
894:
889:
883:
878:
872:
867:
861:
856:
760:
755:
580:
574:
572:
570:
475:
381:
331:
278:
250:). Has received
233:
226:
193:
192:
178:
130:
118:
100:
60:
34:
954:
953:
949:
948:
947:
945:
944:
943:
942:
936:deletion review
925:
920:
919:
912:
908:
901:
897:
890:
886:
879:
875:
868:
864:
857:
853:
848:
800:
758:
746:
585:
576:
565:
563:
524:Alternatively:
490:, I'll address
471:
465:look for source
415:As for whether
377:
327:
274:
229:
220:
135:
126:
91:
75:
72:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
952:
950:
941:
940:
918:
917:
906:
895:
884:
873:
862:
850:
849:
847:
844:
843:
842:
799:
798:Merge proposal
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
772:SwisterTwister
766:
765:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
628:
627:
607:
606:
573:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
522:
413:
412:
411:
400:
337:
336:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
267:
266:
240:
239:
232:
224:
196:
195:
132:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
951:
939:
937:
933:
928:
922:
921:
915:
910:
907:
904:
899:
896:
893:
888:
885:
882:
877:
874:
871:
866:
863:
860:
855:
852:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
797:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:
773:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
761:
756:
753:
749:
743:
740:
739:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:WP:NOTCATALOG
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
674:
671:
668:
664:
663:WP:NOTCATALOG
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
612:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
586:
583:
579:
578:North America
571:
568:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
516:
511:
507:
503:
501:
496:
495:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
474:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
405:
401:
398:
394:
390:
389:
387:
386:
385:
382:
380:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:neighbourhood
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
332:
330:
324:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
303:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
279:
277:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
237:
234:
230:
227:
222:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
926:
923:
909:
898:
887:
876:
865:
854:
827:
803:
775:
751:
747:
741:
641:
637:
610:
564:
525:
505:
499:
497:
487:
472:
466:
463:WP:CORPDEPTH
432:
403:
392:
378:
372:WP:CORPDEPTH
343:
328:
321:
314:WP:CORPDEPTH
310:WP:CORPDEPTH
305:
275:
247:
243:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
123:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
473:-- HighKing
379:-- HighKing
329:-- HighKing
276:-- HighKing
223:Chickadee46
162:free images
846:References
200:Meatsgains
932:talk page
673:(contrib)
667:Eggishorn
634:Eggishorn
622:(contrib)
616:Eggishorn
57:Wizardman
37:talk page
934:or in a
824:WP:FAILN
820:grepmail
808:WP:FAILN
697:WP:FAILN
681:grepmail
567:Relisted
121:View log
39:or in a
812:Notmuch
521:is met.
500:usually
168:WP refs
156:scholar
94:protect
89:history
77:Notmuch
69:Notmuch
832:zazpot
816:Mairix
782:zazpot
754:wister
750:wister
742:Delete
721:zazpot
717:WP:GNG
705:WP:GNG
693:WP:GNG
689:Mairix
685:WP:GNG
683:meets
670:(talk)
648:zazpot
619:(talk)
611:Delete
538:zazpot
534:WP:GNG
530:WP:COI
519:WP:GNG
492:WP:GNG
459:WP:GNG
441:zazpot
437:WP:RSs
429:WP:GNG
417:WP:GNG
353:zazpot
349:WP:GNG
308:Fails
306:Delete
287:zazpot
256:zazpot
248:userfy
140:Google
98:delete
50:delete
804:Merge
777:merge
643:merge
515:WP:RS
510:mdadm
484:WP:RS
455:WP:RS
431:does
425:WP:RS
421:WP:RS
368:WP:RS
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
836:talk
818:and
786:talk
759:talk
725:talk
652:talk
599:talk
542:talk
461:and
445:talk
397:here
357:talk
323:seen
291:talk
260:talk
244:Keep
231:talk
204:talk
176:FENS
150:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
830:".
826:: "
711:or
636:: "
506:ask
433:not
190:TWL
119:– (
52:.
838:)
788:)
727:)
654:)
601:)
593:.
544:)
536:.
447:)
439:.
359:)
351:.
325:.
293:)
262:)
254:.
218:.
206:)
170:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
834:(
784:(
752:T
748:S
723:(
650:(
597:(
540:(
488:s
467:s
443:(
402:"
399:.
391:"
355:(
289:(
258:(
202:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
124:·
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.