Talk:Nano Pi
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Notability
[edit]Arguments for notability: multiple versions (implying commerical success) and various reviews comparing it to raspberry pi (which is notable). TALpedia 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- AndroidPimp, most cited, looks like a self-published blog with no signs of editorial oversight, so is wiki-unreliable, and should be removed. CNX-software: same, but could argue "expertise" of the author to justify. Based on current cites, article could be OK for this type of article and may survive AfD, but it's not a slam dunk. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got a bit lazy when chasing down all the models as I wanted to list them all and wanted cites - let me see if I can find better ones. TALpedia 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Can't find magazine reviews for some of the machines. But I can find them referenced incidentally in academic papers if that seems better? TALpedia 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay - I've removed some androidpimp references and replaced them where I could find a better version. I also added some scholarly papers to boost notability. TALpedia 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Talpedia: The Linder Liliputing unreliable cites have been removed and tagged twice now. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Liliputing.com_blog_as_a_reliable_source? for why it should not be used. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Yae4: Ah okay I thought that source was okay because it has an editorial board and was not mentioned in the discussion above and I was using it as an alternative for the other sources that were used above. I don't particularly care that I added twice as I was trying to jump through hoops for citation standards and it took me a lot of work to try and find citations for fairly basic claims like "this computer exists" - nor did I intend to revert the removal of citations - just find alternative citations for claims. That said I'll avoid using it going forward. I've spent a few hours trying to jump through hoops to cite very simple claims like "this computer exists" so I think I think I'm done with the article for now - if you want to delete the article or remove material feel free and I won't oppose TALpedia 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Talpedia: In theory, Wikipedia is not a catalog, WP:NOTCATALOG, nor for promotion, WP:PROMOTION, so it is not necessary to list every model, and every detail. Readers can find the information elsewhere. Regardless, some articles, for example OLinuXino, have much more detail and much worse sourcing, so don't feel bad or be discouraged. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get that. I just sort of wanted to convey the idea that "this is an alternative to raspberry pi, there are a bunch of different models, some of them are intended for routers" so that nano pi's could be placed in the universe of single board computers but people don't really say such things directly so listing models is the only alternative. I also want sort of "touch" the single board material in wikipedia, because making a few edits is a way of geting a feel for the literature (or lack thereof) TALpedia 17:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Talpedia: In theory, Wikipedia is not a catalog, WP:NOTCATALOG, nor for promotion, WP:PROMOTION, so it is not necessary to list every model, and every detail. Readers can find the information elsewhere. Regardless, some articles, for example OLinuXino, have much more detail and much worse sourcing, so don't feel bad or be discouraged. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Yae4: Ah okay I thought that source was okay because it has an editorial board and was not mentioned in the discussion above and I was using it as an alternative for the other sources that were used above. I don't particularly care that I added twice as I was trying to jump through hoops for citation standards and it took me a lot of work to try and find citations for fairly basic claims like "this computer exists" - nor did I intend to revert the removal of citations - just find alternative citations for claims. That said I'll avoid using it going forward. I've spent a few hours trying to jump through hoops to cite very simple claims like "this computer exists" so I think I think I'm done with the article for now - if you want to delete the article or remove material feel free and I won't oppose TALpedia 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Talpedia: The Linder Liliputing unreliable cites have been removed and tagged twice now. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Liliputing.com_blog_as_a_reliable_source? for why it should not be used. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got a bit lazy when chasing down all the models as I wanted to list them all and wanted cites - let me see if I can find better ones. TALpedia 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)