235:
use published books, newspapers, and other authoritative sources, which have to be independent of the subject of the article, and are secondary reports rather than primary research. So a paper that compares different products objectively would be OK, but a newsletter published by a software house about its own products would not (except to show that a product existed, and perhaps to obtain some details about it, not to prove notability). Hope this helps a bit, and that you like it here.
252:
Hi all. We are a new open-source community-based hypervisor so, more research papers are to follow. It is only 1 year old and no software house or corporate owns Xvisor. We had published a news article on LWN almost a year back (please see, ). The LWN is very reliable and authentic news site for any
234:
It's a very fair question, and it goes to the heart of what
Knowledge is about (welcome in, by the way). The basic idea is that we can't rely on stuff that you or me can edit whenever we like, so blogs, personal websites, wikis (yes, even this one), Amazon and so on aren't generally usable. You can
276:, press releases don't count. I understand that your product is a new one and has not gotten much coverage yet, and no one here is saying "this cannot possibly ever be notable", merely that its notability is not yet established. --
200:-- I'm not finding the sort of significant third-party sources that would indicate notability. No relevant gnews hits (unsurprisingly), ghits seem to be the official site, chat forums, and distribution databases.
166:
119:
292:
312:
160:
356:
for a
Knowledge article. Please come back when people in independent journals and reliable websites have written about you. Good luck with the product.
379:. Notability not yet established. But looks like a good project that should of course be included when/if it get picked up by reliable sources.
126:
17:
272:
Even without qualifying LWN in general, the piece appears to be the republication of a press release, and under
Knowledge's
257:). The LWN thoroughly reviews any news before publishing. Can you consider LWN news as a verifiable reference of Xvisor ? --
181:
148:
92:
87:
452:
401:
213:
Hello Nat. Sorry for my newbie attitude but I am trying to understand what you are considering as acceptable for
96:
40:
361:
240:
79:
262:
448:
222:
142:
57:
36:
424:
281:
258:
214:
205:
197:
174:
138:
357:
236:
83:
433:
388:
365:
344:
324:
304:
285:
266:
244:
226:
209:
61:
353:
320:
300:
188:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
447:
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
384:
218:
75:
67:
53:
415:
376:
277:
217:. What kind of proof/reference are you expecting to consider Xvisor as worth including? --
201:
340:
411:
273:
154:
397:
316:
296:
113:
380:
336:
406:
335:- I cannot find independent coverage to establish notability. --
441:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
254:
109:
105:
101:
173:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
455:). No further edits should be made to this page.
293:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
313:list of Software-related deletion discussions
253:news related to Linux kernel (For more info,
187:
8:
311:Note: This debate has been included in the
291:Note: This debate has been included in the
410:article, but that's not enough to meet the
310:
290:
7:
24:
396:. Little significant coverage by
352:, yes, sorry but this seems much
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
274:General Notability Guidelines
434:16:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
412:general notability guideline
389:11:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
366:18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
345:16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
325:15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
305:15:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
286:22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
267:04:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
245:20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
227:20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
210:15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
62:16:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
472:
398:reliable secondary sources
444:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
219:Jean-Christophe DUBOIS
402:brief trivial mention
404:of the subject in a
48:The result was
327:
307:
463:
446:
431:
422:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
471:
470:
466:
465:
464:
462:
461:
460:
459:
453:deletion review
442:
425:
416:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
469:
467:
458:
457:
437:
436:
400:. There was a
391:
369:
368:
347:
329:
328:
308:
288:
250:
249:
248:
247:
212:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
468:
456:
454:
450:
445:
439:
438:
435:
432:
429:
423:
421:
420:
413:
409:
408:
403:
399:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:. Agree with
374:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
358:Chiswick Chap
355:
351:
348:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
246:
242:
238:
237:Chiswick Chap
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:WP:NOTABILITY
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:WP:NOTABILITY
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
443:
440:
427:
418:
417:
405:
393:
372:
349:
332:
251:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
414:criteria.--
377:Nat Gertler
278:Nat Gertler
202:Nat Gertler
161:free images
54:Mark Arsten
419:xanchester
354:WP:TOOSOON
259:Anuppateli
449:talk page
317:• Gene93k
297:• Gene93k
37:talk page
451:or in a
120:View log
39:or in a
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
394:Delete
381:Runarb
373:Delete
350:Delete
333:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
76:Xvisor
68:Xvisor
50:delete
407:ZDNet
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
385:talk
362:talk
341:talk
337:Whpq
321:talk
301:talk
282:talk
263:talk
241:talk
223:talk
206:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
255:LWN
189:TWL
118:– (
387:)
364:)
343:)
323:)
315:.
303:)
295:.
284:)
265:)
243:)
225:)
208:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
430:)
428:t
426:(
383:(
360:(
339:(
319:(
299:(
280:(
261:(
239:(
221:(
204:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.