Talk:Open-Source Lab (book)

Editors - This is a stub- please help me fill it in -- I am working to flesh out the Open Source Lab (disambiguation) -please see discussion on User talk:AVRS and my talk pages. I will be working on that over the next week or so. Thanks --Stockwellnow (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Dear Editors - This page should not be deleted as it is a new book dated 2014 so doesn't have many references to it yet other than interviews with the author and a few mentions in the literature etc. It is important, however, (or noteable) because I am using it as part of my collection of Open Source Lab (disambiguation) to show that the general concept is spreading quite rapidly. If I add in some of the other citations that are already available will that be tolerable to avoid the deletion? The reason by disamb page got slammed the first time I wrote it was too many red links - I filled them in and do not want to do it all over again. Please help me do it right - Thanks Stockwellnow (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If the book isn't even out yet, then all the more reason there shouldn't be an article yet unless there is substantial advance coverage in anticipation, amounting to advance notability. See WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Even a book that's out has to meet WP:NBOOK. If it hasn't even been released, we probably can't predict now whether it will reach that standard later.

There are probably plenty of open source-related topics that merit coverage here. I see you've been creating articles about a bunch of specific labs, which I haven't reviewed but offhand I'd figure they could be suitable topics, in which case you are making valuable contributions. But a disambiguation page is to distinguish between existing pages with similar titles, on topics with the same or similar primary or alternative names. Wanting to fill out a disambiguation page isn't justification for creating an article! Each article needs to stand on its own in terms of meeting Wikipedia's guidelines.

If you want to show that the concept is spreading rapidly, the best bet is to find reliable sources that already make that observation and incorporate their findings into what you write here. This may not be what you had in mind, but be careful not to bring in pieces of information and draw your own conclusions from them in the articles you write. See WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I get it - I was only able to find a few other links of value. If you dont think that is enough go ahead and delete. I guess something I dont understand is I thought wikipedia was supposed to be "all human knowledge" - so shouldn't it at the very list contain stubs for all the books ever printed along with everything else? Then the noteable ones get filled in. --Stockwellnow (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a Wikipedia page (a friendly introduction page rather than a page on policy and guidelines) that I just discovered makes this grand claim. I've posted a suggestion on its Talk page that the sentence be altered to make it consistent with actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines as reflected on the page about what Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've redirected to the author's page. The problem here is that notability doesn't stem from the notability of the topic of open-source lab. Notability comes from coverage for the actual book itself, which means that the book has received things such as book reviews, peer-reviewed journal entries about it, and the like. None of the sources really give an in-depth mention of the book. The contest link is a trivial primary link at best since the book is just a prize for someone winning the contest. The other sources are really more about the concept than the actual book itself, plus the one that gives a more in-depth mention of the book might be considered by some to be a blog source. The reference is a good start, but we need a lot of papers that reference the book while also remaining separate from the source itself. (IE, they're not Pearce, someone affiliated closely with him, or someone that works for the publisher.) What I would recommend is that you work on an article for OSL itself rather than create multiple small articles that ultimately don't pass notability guidelines for individual articles. I'll drop a note on your talk page about other things that I'm seeing issues with and suggestions for alternatives. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Open Source Lab (book cover).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)