Talk:LibrePilot

Notability

I think this project is notable, I have been following it for a while. I added this as I like wikipedia and this was not listed, I'm more than a bit disappointed to see this when I worked hard on this entry.

If you think long dead and unused projects like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-Pilot (first I found when searching for pilot), there are many entries like this.

Are notable and the effort to create a fully open UAV, entirely from Free software are not, I am shocked. No wonder the community gets discouraged if you say their efforts are not notable. I did this work for free about a notable project and I consider this over zealous, I full intend to maintain this page, I'm sorry I can not spend hours on it per day but I try to mix family and work with this. It will be a more detailed and more referenced but I need time. I followed the rules and fully cited it.

Also you said there was link spam, wikipedia uses the "no follow" tag so this is of course not the case.

Please don't delete my work. I will try and update it as I can, I also intend to add to other UAV related articles as many need some help.

additional

I just read the notability guidelines: "Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic."

I guess I understand your issue: you know nothing about the area you are judging. Creating a fully Free software UAV platform is extremely notable, it is a game changer in the UAV world and very "worthy of notice". Just because you are not part of that world and it is not notable to you does not mean you can judge this, I hope you can accept this. For example, people that know nothing about software may think an effort to create a Free software operating system "not notable", of course, to people in the IT world GNU/Linux is very notable. I hope that makes sense, I know it must be hard to moderate Wikipedia and people look to abuse it, in this case, the article most certainly meets notability guidelines and is extremely important for the UAV community. Hope you can accept this.

My wife asks that maybe you are from a commercial company that works with UAVs? OpenPilot is going to impact that business greatly and maybe this is why it needs to be censored? I doubt this is the case (I hope not), she is a little paranoid at times and maybe I am a little naive.

Message from an openpilot developer

Hi, I’m Angus and I am one of the developers of this project, I realise I can not edit the content at all and I do not intend to do so. Simon whom created the page has a keen interest in the project as a user but is not a member of the project, I suspect he is trying to help in his own way. Although I think adding this page is about two weeks early, it is a very notable project and will gain a lot of interest and as Simon states; it is a game changer. UAVs are gaining a lot of attention and there is a growing demand, especially in the areas of the military, border control, search and rescue and policing. OpenPilot is a Free software project with a rapidly growing community that aims to provide these functions on an Open platform. Considering UAVs with similar functionality sell for 10’s of thousands of dollars, OpenPilot is a notable project and should be in the encyclopedia.

I find it bizarre that OpenPilot could be considered not noteworthy when toys like the Parrot Drone have an article. Whilst I thing the Parrot does have a place here, OpenPilot is certainly just as notable and has an iPhone interface amongst others. Currently it is more widely known because of CES but, long term OpenPIlot is much more notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot_AR.Drone

OpenPilot is growing rapidly, I trust Simon to maintain this page and add details once they are citable. There will be much more to cite when the project is officially revealed in the coming weeks.

Thankyou,

Angus Peart OpenPilot Developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusp27 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find some sources to meet WP:N

The notability of this topic needs to be demonstrated through independent, reliable sources per WP:N. I'm happy to help review such sources. Another option is to trim the article to a WP:STUB until such sources are available. Otherwise, the article could be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things take some time, but are coming

Ronz, your sources are on the way. It is very difficult with a project that is still working semi under the radar. The project will be announced on Feb 14th, please give me some time, then you will see that this is notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonPWilliams (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll keep an eye on the article, and try to prevent if from being deleted in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ron SimonPWilliams (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guys unveiled the project yesterday with a Podcast on Chris Anderson (writer)'s DIYDrones. This will pick up from here but Small UAV News has already picked up on it and saying it is a potential game changer.

http://www.suasnews.com/2010/02/241/new-open-source-uav-autopilot-launched/

I don't want to flood the article with links for the sake of it but this is certainly a notable project.

SimonPWilliams (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

As a historic note, the word "notability" as used on Wikipedia, is not about things being worthy of note. No value judgement is being made and no one should be discouraging useful contributions. The only concern is whether or not the subject discussed in places off of Wikipedia, and not directly related to the project the article is being written about. This is dealt with through high quality references, something I'm now trying to add. The rule is around because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR firm. Verify. Thankyou for your time and effort on our project. Awg1010 (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]