Talk:MagLev (software)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Self-published

Can someone please explain what in the article lends itself to being marked as "self-published?" There are no links to my own works. Thanks for clarifying. Jessecooke (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-published == published with no editorial oversight. Each blog post, yours or anyone else's is self published. Eg., in this diff (and this) you introduced a typical self-published source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I suppose that is the nature of open-source software these days. Obie & Ilya are very well respected Ruby programmers, and InfoQ is a fantastic publisher of programming-related content. So what you're asking for is a reference to a refereed journal or a book? I don't believe any exist, but I would assume none exist for a lot of open source software with articles on WP. Jessecooke (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am asking is a reference to a source with editorial control, as required per WP:GNG. You may want to read WP:NSOFT about the application of these rules to software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The author of the Engine Yard blog post is the creator of the Rubinius Ruby implementation. It is not on a personal blog but the blog of his company, who funded his work on Rubinius. He is widely considered an expert in Ruby. What else is needed in order to remove the self-published mark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessecooke (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer some third party to assess reliability of this source, as to me it seems a routine blog post by another member of IT crowd. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me some pointers in finding a third party then? What kind of organization fits the bill? Jessecooke (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on the topic – WP:RSFS. Though keep in mind that it is not a policy, and it is rather permissive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably InfoQ could be used as a borderline case: it is a reputable collective blog with most articles written by core team, so in cases when the author of a particular article isn't connected to the topic, it may be OK. Still, better sources (eg., eWeek) would be preferable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

GemStone/S as foundation for MagLev

Czarkoff you made note on reference #1 that MagLev was not mentioned in the material referenced. MagLev is built on GemStone/S, so it shares the same object persistence mechanism. There are no documents like that available for the Ruby version, MagLev, only the Smalltalk version. Therefore, since both MagLev & the Smalltalk implementation sit on the same VM & same object store, that reference is valid for the object persistence itself. Jessecooke (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a WP:SYNTH for that. Unless you claim that it is absolutely impossible under any circumstances to use GemStone/S without sharing its object persistence mechanism (which is doubtful), you can't prove the availability of this mechanism in derivative product basing your claim on GenStone/S's docs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

User:DGG can you please explain what you mean by "no evidence at all for any notability"? MagLev is highly notable, as it is the only Ruby implementation that has object persistence built in. Jessecooke (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can guess at one. Google News shows no relevant stories for "maglev ruby". It has few references, mostly in niche places like Ruby blogs and conference notes. I'm a fan of Ruby and the development around it, but I think MagLev hasn't taken off enough yet to fulfill the notability requirements. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 05:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How many stories does Google News show about the Java HotSpot VM? Not many, however HotSpot is the single most important managed language runtime in the world today. Google News is a terrible metric for the notability of a language virtual machine. Tarcieri (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. On Wednesday the maintainer of JRuby stated both that "[he sees] MagLev as a brother to JRuby"[1] and that he envies MagLev's object persistence[2]. Also, students at the Hasso Plattner Institute are actively choosing to work on MagLev to support enough 1.9.3 to run Rails 4 as part of their school project[3]. MagLev is unique among Ruby implementations, therefore inherently notable. While it may not be in wide usage, it still deserves to have a Wikipedia page. Jessecooke (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I am an occasional committer to MagLev, I am not a core contributor. I don't get paid to work on it like Alan & Peter did (Tim was a visiting contributor last summer) so the article is not self-published. I'm new to editing on WP so any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Jessecooke (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MagLev may indeed be notable. However, you will need to find sources that aren't on social media, per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Twitter and other social networks may be used as sources only in articles about the publisher, and even then should not be used as primary sources.

Might I suggest that, if this dispute continues and the article is deleted, you work on the article somewhere in your user space until it's ready for publication? You can slap {{user sandbox}} on it and nobody will bother you. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 06:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we can agree that MagLev is notable, then the article shouldn't be deleted. ;) I was only referencing the tweets as recent evidence.

Thanks for the suggestion. I hope it doesn't come to that! Jessecooke (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess you have your work cut out for you, then. :)

A note: I restored the deletion tag because you, as the article creator, should not remove deletion tags. Anyone coming to review the deletion will certainly look at the page history and the talk page (here) before taking action. So, keep up the activity and watch for new comments here. Good luck! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 06:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should restore the notice per [[4]] "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {proposed deletion} tag from an article, do not replace it" Am I reading that incorrectly? Again, you agreed that MagLev was notable, which was the sole reason for deletion in the first place. Jessecooke (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you're correct. I just haven't kept up with Wikipedia policy, apparently. Either that or I confused it with the WP:SPEEDY procedure, which does disallow the author from removing the tag. In either case, I reverted the revert. Cheers for keeping me honest! :) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 06:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jessecooke, as this page was once already deleted due to the lack of notability, you should probably add some inlince citations to independent reliable sources ASAP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)