Στις 19/05/2012 15:09:25 Johnny A. Solbu γράψατε: > On Saturday 19 May 2012 14:24, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > > The guy (or gal) who decided about notable or not must be either a > > very bad researcher or did not try at all > > That's not the issiue. it mus be apparent from the article itself why it is > notable. If it is not apparent from the article why it is notable, then it is > not notable. It really is that simple. > > > even if you look with half an eye only you can't miss > > international reactions and notablility of Mageia. > > That is of no help if neither is used as sources for what's written in the > article. > It can be compared to what happens in court. It's not what you know, but what > you can prove in the court. > > > Of course wikipedia pages in other languages > > must be very hard to find for this person. > > You can't use another wikipedia article as source. That is original research. > If one could one culd write an article about X and use the article about Y as > source, and in teh Y article use X as source. Then you have the circular > argument problem. > >
Including in the top 10 Distribution (so is notable) http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7925/2/ The news of the creation in slashdot http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/18/1437248/developers-fork-mandriva-linux-creating-mageia Mageia has gained considerable popularity since its creation in late 2010, and it now occupies the No. 6 spot on DistroWatch's popularity rankings--particularly impressive given that Mandriva is currently at No. 23. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/255498/six_key_features_coming_in_mageia_linux_20.html h-online http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mageia-2-approaches-with-release-candidate-1572146.html ZDNet UK / Blogs / Jamie's Mostly Linux Stuff http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jamies-mostly-linux-stuff-10006480/mageia-2-beta-3-a-preview-10025939/ Many articles in SOFTPEDIA http://news.softpedia.com/dyn-search.php?search_term=mageia&x=0&y=0 So the argument of notability is invalid: The above and all other links we all mentioned are independent, secondary, reliable, sources. It seems that anyone values the sources as he wants. For the fact that a simple search in Google for mageia gives many resources from big journals, and dont forget the journals in other languages than English, the fact that Mageia is in the major distribution list in Distrowatch, the fact that in the same site Mageia reaches the top 5, the fact that only its creation was a flash news in the bigger Linux journals (and dont forget that there is press outside the online magazines) makes Mageia a notable distribution that deserves its own article in wikipedia. After that we can understand very easy the desire from Walter Görlitz to delete the page. As i said it is IMPOSSIBLE to convince him and probably you too (Johnny A. Solbu) even with valid arguments. There is no goodwill to see other way than delete the article. Even a child after a simple google search would have thought : " Surely we need more external sources, but is obvious that is a notable thing. As other major distributions have their article i will dont delete the article but i will put a banner to reclaime more external sources". Like in other distributions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions It is a question of goodwill to delete the work of someone for an obvious "notable" (even without read any guidelines) distribution, it was a question of time to collect the asked resources to reach the guidelines. And there is no need to be someone a lawyer to be able to understand and interpret these guidelines. I say this because i have the feeling that we justify the guidelines as a lawyer, but is a wrong way; There is no impartial lawyer :) -- Dimitrios Glentadakis
