551:. Editing about subjects you are personally involved in–such as your own employer–is discouraged. From what you say, you sound like you work for Globo. If that is true, then many would say it would be better if you didn't edit the article, because there is a concern your edits might be biased in favour of your employer. You naturally have loyalty towards your employer, and your employer expects loyalty from you, but that loyalty generally limits your ability to be honest about them in public–it is hard for you to be honest about their weaknesses, and even their strengths you may have a natural tendency to overstate–if you were to be completely honest about both here, you might get yourself in trouble at work. And this is a concern about the article at present–you wrote most of it, and what you have written sounds too much like marketing material–e.g. focusing on the strength of the project and passing over potential weaknesses. Independent authors are more likely to be even-handed–to cover both the positives and the negatives equally–while employees will play up the positives and downplay the negatives–it is what their employer expects of them, but it is not what Knowledge (XXG) wants. I myself lean towards the idea an article should exist on Tsuru (although it is borderline), but if the article is kept it needs to be rewritten to sound less like a marketing brochure and more like an independent review.
506:
which apparently is the company? The company article also needs to be rewritten into cited prose instead of uncited bullets, but would have a much better case for being notable. It would help if someone who speaks
Portuguese would contribute, since coverage outside of North America and Britain could
481:
I don't think is fair to use a judgment for other person just to reinforce you view, would be better to have your own evaluation. The stars in the github are great and fair way to judge notability, because don't matter if you invest lots of money into publicity, people only give stars for projects
440:
Just to be clear, I really believe we have notability enough to be at
Knowledge (XXG). What I'm saying is, we are improving it to not have even that kind of doubt as "notability" is very a subjective term. The intention is not use Knowledge (XXG) for marketing, but to inform about tsuru. The same
565:
Thanks for the explanation. I totally get your point. I tried to make it neutral, including the competitors, the reference from UK government, but I agree, even I working in a company that deals ethically in this kind of situation, would be way better to have people outside Globo doing it.
424:
It seems you are admitting a conflict of interest, thanks for being honest. Alas, Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for your marketing, nor should we promote your product until it becomes notable. Just using a citation template does not make it an independent source to justify notability.
592:
compares Tsuru to Cloud
Foundry and Apcera and explains why the UK government chose Cloud Foundry over Tsuru and Apcera. Yes it is a blog post, but it is an official UK government blog, so I think that means it contributes more to notability than the average blog post does.
344:
article seems good, but the book treatment is another short paragraph. Borderline, but I think we need to be tougher on those kind of entries, we are not software directory. The IW article is a good start, but I think we need at least one more in-depth treatment.
63:
discounted
Magnotorres' !vote on the grounds of their declared COI. They mention that their competitors have equally non-notable articles: if they flagged which these were they should perhaps be AfD'ed as well, but either way,
229:
in 2014 for lack of notability (the page creator at that time was also an employee). It was subsequently recreated by
Magnotorres in Dec 2015. I agreed to restore the article for a full AfD to settle the issue of notability.
190:
498:
Agree the topic is borderline, but clearly the article has a history of conflict of interest editing and right now is quite more a marketing page than an encyclopedic article. I would lean to
143:
184:
56:' point that the sources are largely self-references. The UK Govt blog post is a reliable source, but its Tsuru coverage is a bit thin to justify a Knowledge (XXG) page.
246:
413:, full opensource and it is a software that serves the community. We are working to improve marketing/notability and we expect to have a great result this year
150:
52:. Argument son both sides, but end result is a reasonable consensus that this article does not meet notability standards. There's weight behind
225:, who is an employee of the company) has come to my userpage requesting restoration. Prior to this, the article had been speedy deleted under
316:
17:
462:
appears to be promotion for a non notable software product. My opinion when proposing deletion still stands: sourcing fails to meet
289:
116:
111:
205:
120:
172:
103:
366:
65:
507:
be improved. Would also need to know the rules of
Knowledge (XXG) style, and making it into a link farm will not do it.
235:
621:
40:
166:
589:
162:
231:
617:
602:
575:
571:
560:
535:
531:
516:
491:
487:
475:
450:
446:
434:
418:
386:
357:
332:
258:
238:
212:
85:
36:
107:
567:
542:
527:
483:
442:
414:
222:
254:
512:
430:
198:
99:
91:
81:
73:
351:
313:
307:
178:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
616:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
548:
463:
250:
226:
441:
thing has been done by ours direct competitors, would be unfair to be treated different
508:
426:
598:
556:
471:
377:
328:
77:
69:
347:
53:
137:
523:
503:
340:. Pretty much self-references. Wired coverage is in passing, two paragraphs.
341:
526:
is not a good way to procede, because the subjects are totally different.
594:
552:
522:
Can you be clear why you think it has a conflict of interest? Merge with
467:
324:
272:
466:
notability standard, validated by
Piotrus's deeper look in his !vote.
221:
I deleted this in
January after an expired PROD, and the creator (
398:
610:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
369:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
304:
Also discussed in a book published by a reputable publisher:
133:
129:
125:
197:
375:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
211:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
624:). No further edits should be made to this page.
306:San Murugesan; Irena Bojanova (1 August 2016).
290:"Tsuru open source PaaS puts developers first"
247:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
244:
68:" is insufficient as a keep rationale. --
396:. Tsuru is at full blast with more than
273:"Google's Go Appears on Brazilian Cloud"
312:. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 144–145.
348:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
269:Has received some media attention.
24:
309:Encyclopedia of Cloud Computing
76:) 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
1:
421:) :25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
641:
603:21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
576:22:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
561:21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
536:20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
517:18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
492:20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
476:14:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
451:19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
435:18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
387:05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
358:04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
86:23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
333:10:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
259:09:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
239:23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
613:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
502:or at best merge into
482:that matters for them
288:Yegulalp, Serdar.
66:other stuff exists
389:
383:
318:978-1-118-82197-8
261:
632:
615:
546:
412:
410:
409:
381:
374:
372:
370:
354:
322:
303:
301:
300:
286:
284:
283:
216:
215:
201:
153:
141:
123:
34:
640:
639:
635:
634:
633:
631:
630:
629:
628:
622:deletion review
611:
540:
407:
405:
397:
390:
380:
365:
363:
356:
352:
319:
305:
298:
296:
287:
281:
279:
271:Finley, Klint.
270:
158:
149:
114:
98:
95:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
638:
636:
627:
626:
606:
605:
590:This blog post
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
496:
495:
494:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
378:
373:
362:
361:
360:
346:
335:
317:
263:
262:
219:
218:
155:
94:
89:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
637:
625:
623:
619:
614:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
591:
588:
585:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
544:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
518:
514:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
458:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
420:
416:
404:
400:
399:"12K commits"
395:
392:
391:
388:
385:
384:
371:
368:
359:
355:
349:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
320:
315:
311:
310:
295:
291:
278:
274:
268:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
241:
240:
237:
233:
228:
224:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
152:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
93:
90:
88:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
62:
57:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
612:
609:
586:
547:Please read
499:
459:
406:. Retrieved
402:
393:
376:
364:
337:
308:
297:. Retrieved
293:
280:. Retrieved
276:
266:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
146:
100:Tsuru (PaaS)
92:Tsuru (PaaS)
60:
58:
49:
47:
31:
28:
568:Magnotorres
543:Magnotorres
528:Magnotorres
524:Grupo Globo
504:Grupo Globo
484:Magnotorres
443:Magnotorres
415:Magnotorres
338:Weak delete
223:Magnotorres
185:free images
408:2017-04-12
353:reply here
299:2017-04-09
282:2017-04-09
251:Dialectric
618:talk page
509:W Nowicki
427:W Nowicki
342:InfoWorld
294:InfoWorld
267:Weak keep
37:talk page
620:or in a
367:Relisted
144:View log
78:Euryalus
70:Euryalus
61:somewhat
39:or in a
587:Comment
382:HAMPION
191:WPÂ refs
179:scholar
117:protect
112:history
54:Piotrus
549:WP:COI
500:delete
464:WP:GNG
460:Delete
403:Github
236:(talk)
163:Google
121:delete
50:delete
277:WIRED
206:JSTOR
167:books
151:Stats
138:views
130:watch
126:links
59:Also
16:<
599:talk
572:talk
557:talk
532:talk
513:talk
488:talk
472:talk
447:talk
431:talk
419:talk
394:Keep
329:talk
314:ISBN
255:talk
199:FENS
173:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
82:talk
74:talk
595:SJK
553:SJK
468:Bri
325:SJK
232:PMC
213:TWL
142:– (
601:)
574:)
559:)
534:)
519:.
515:)
490:)
478:.
474:)
449:)
437:.
433:)
401:.
345:--
331:)
323:.
292:.
275:.
257:)
249:.
234:â™
227:A7
193:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
84:)
597:(
570:(
555:(
545::
541:@
530:(
511:(
486:(
470:(
445:(
429:(
417:(
411:.
379:C
350:|
327:(
321:.
302:.
285:.
253:(
230:â™
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
147:·
140:)
102:(
80:(
72:(
64:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.