Jump to content

Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion review

[edit]

By unanimous decision on deletion review this article has been restored. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29 for further details.

Pity. I've just spent 1/2 hr cleaning up image/category spam. -- samj inout 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't spam, and calling it that was offensive. Stop that, Sam, it's tossing gasoline on the situation. If you like flames, well, that's your choice, but don't be surprised if your account gets toasted. Instead, I suggest, how about cooperating here? Nobody's out to get you or harass you. If they are, there is WP:ANI to complain to, but, by all means, be careful. --Abd (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing something on spam is easier than resolving an editorial dispute. That takes a lot of thought and energy crafting arguments with merit or accepting that there is no merit in your arguments. Right Sam? LirazSiri (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source supporting notability

[edit]

English sources

[edit]

Non-english sources

[edit]

I didn't add these sources to the body of the proposed article because they are not in English, but they should still count towards notability:

RfC: How can this proposed article be improved?

[edit]

This article was rewritten based on an earlier article that was deleted in a rather messy affair instigated by an anonymous IP vandal.

From: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_61#Notability criteria for entries on free software projects?

I don't see that anyone noticed that the speedy deletion tag was placed by an IP editor, but I haven't read all the reams of discussion this generated. This affair is a poster boy for requiring AfD when speedy deletion is contested. Simple enough, and far, far less contentious. (AfD can be bad enough). Contested speedy deletion, if undeletion is refused, isn't speedy, and it's much harder for a "losing editor" to accept. I requested the article undeleted and userfied so that people can see it, it's now at User:Abd/TurnKey Linux, and one of the first things I noticed was that the db-spam tag was added by 87.196.76.86. The IP geolocates to Portugal, and it may or may not mean anything that the editor also nominated NUbuntu (speedy denied), and quite inappropriately removed Alinex, a Portuguese distribution, from List of Ubuntu-based distributions. In four minutes on January 29, this anonymous editor created quite a splash. Maybe it's about time the IP gets credit for this. Is this the same editor who tenderly expressed some wishes today with a series of edits, including [6]? In any case, I suspect there are some lessons to be learned from this affair, so I'm starting a page, User:Abd/Open Source notability to examine the issues that LirazSiri attempted to raise here, without all the shouting. Anyone interested, join the salon. Be nice. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have a potential WP:COI with this article, since it describes a project I co-founded and contribute to. According to Wikipedia guidelines that doesn't preclude me from editing/writing the article but I understand I have to be careful. I've tried my best to neutralize how this effects my judgment and edit the article from a NPOV, but just to be on the safe side I am requesting comments. LirazSiri (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


LirazSiri requested that I take a look at this RfC. I'm sorry to report that when I said that my real concern was with the process and I wasn't certain of my own opinion about the notability of the article, I was serious. With the current articulation of notability on Wikipedia I don't think I can endorse this as WP:Notable - not because of anything it says in the article but because without having fleshed out better notability guidelines for OSS (which I think LirazSiri and Abd are correct that we need) I honestly don't think this topic can defensibly make the cut for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (And consequently, under the current guidelines many other Ubuntu distro articles technically ought to be deleted too, although I would want to postpone any such destruction of content until more attention is spent on the OSS-specific guidelines.)
One other bit of advice for LirazSiri: it might be an idea, if you have the time and wherewithal, to try fleshing out and organizing some entire category of articles that would include TurnKey Linux - all open-source operating system LiveCD distributions, for example, in concert with the development of OSS notability guidelines. This might help to convince the WP community that your efforts on the TurnKey article are borne genuinely out of an interest in improving Wikipedia and not solely for promotion of the software project. (Though of course I can't speak for anyone except myself. And if you're just completely fed up with Wikipedia at this point I would understand.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think the matter of TurnKey Linux's notability can be addressed separately from the notability guidelines for open source projects. I would of course like to see a more sensible policy for covering open source projects, but from my research (summarized above) it seems TurnKey Linux is already in compliance with Wikipedia's general criteria for notability. I just wish these same guidelines wouldn't advocate the destruction of all open source projects who have not yet received such media attention. LirazSiri (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) comment refactored here from above previous paragraph, where it broke up SB's comment. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I might do that if I had enough free time on my hands but competition from life and work prevents me from dedicating myself to single handedly crusading for open source notability on Wikipedia. I'm not fed up with Wikipedia but the community really needs to step up and get more people involved in a real discussion. IMO, Wikipedia is facing a real problem now that the bulk of the content has been written. Many of the people who were enthusiastically motivated to create seem to have left the stage and tipped the balance from "creationism" towards a destructive and irrational form of "deletionism". I'm only one person and I really don't want to be caught in the cross-hairs of this phenomena again. I've had enough of that for a life time. OTOH, I do hope that my contributions to User talk:Abd/Open Source notability will motivate others to pitch in and help as well. LirazSiri (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the lack of specialised notability guidelines for OSS, I assume that the fallback position would be that of the general notability guidelines, would it not? In which case, the issue is whether or not it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm willing to accept the Information Week article (although it should be used as a reference, rather than as an "External link", and it would be easy enough to add it as one), but I'm not convinced of the Linux Devices article in terms of notability. So the main change I'd want to make is to find some more sources to show that TurnKey Linux has had sufficient coverage. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we would simply punt back to the GNG in a case like this. But I'd like to think that Linux Devices is a reliable source (if not a significant one) and between that and the Ubuntu newsletter that should cover a little more ground. Maybe those and the Information Week article makes "two" Significant Sources (but, then again, I'm a ruthless inclusionist). If nothing else this is the very bottom of what could pass for a supportable article. Very good work. I'd vote Keep and improve in an AfD. Padillah (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the reliable non-English sources? Is there a rule I'm not aware of that says only English sources can be used to establish notability in the English Wikipedia? LirazSiri (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need not be in English, though English sources are preferred. Google translations can be used (and referenced from Talk) or translations can be made by editors knowing the language. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find more references. I did a Google News search and found: [1] (Information Week); [2] (tectonic); [3] (in German; I can read German (with difficulty and with the help of a dictionary) so if you think this reference would add notability, I can extract some facts from it for you if you ask me to.) There may be other places you can find references: maybe look through some IT magazines or something. I tried Google Scholar and found a few extremely brief mentions of "turnkey Linux" but I think they were referring to the concept in general, not to this specific project. I hope this helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all three regurgitations from the same press release. Mind you, that they got a page at InformationWeek shows that they have some actual notability. Will be waiting for some independent sources.
P.D.: (notice the german one is a newsticker with little news and tibdits). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, the media attention is all in response to the project's last release. Journalists receive an endless stream of press releases every day - they're THE standard interface between the media and various news sources. They (and the publication) still have to exercise editorial judgment and separate what is important from what isn't. These days most tech journalists just assume that if anything important happens they'll get a press release about it, which unfortunately reduces their motivation to go out and explore on their own. That kind of sucks but its the way things are. BTW the non-English sources (infoworld, Ubuntu Linux france) happened well in advance of any contact the project had with the English-speaking media. LirazSiri (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to review the criticisms at DRV: [4]. Some of them are moot; Here, LirazSiri's COI is totally irrelevant; presumably consensus will be found here on the best article, most bullet-proof against AfD, before it moves back to mainspace. We can decide at that time what procedure to follow. The DRV was withdrawn, so we could go back there, if asking the deleting admin, nicely, to allow return doesn't come up with a satisfactory answer. Or, probably better, it could just go back to mainspace, because there never was an AfD on this; if it is properly sourced, etc., at that point, the speedy criteria should be even more questionable, and there may be no admin willing to speedy it. In which case, done. Please do not move the article back to mainspace without consultation here, and LS, you should not be the one to move it back, period. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. After doing a bit more research regarding reliable sources who covered the project I feel confident that the evidence speaks for itself. LirazSiri (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I think InformationWeek is a good reference to have, probably enough to meet notability requirements. I find the subject matter relevant and notable but this is my personal opinion. You may want to post on the Computer reference desk to talk directly to wikipedians that are involved in IT - but the deletionists would probably (cynically) claim you're forum shopping or some such. Abd is correct you should not personally restore the article to mainspace, but again there is a small question as to whether ultimately it should go straight to mainspace or if we should be going through Deletion Review. If Wikipedia functioned properly you should be able to go straight to mainspace; trouble is, most deletionists won't stop and think, they'll simply speedy delete citing "reposting of already deleted content". Therefore it might be 'wiser' to go through Deletion Review. Sigh, the system stinks. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the guidelines, previously deleted articles are open to speedy if they are not substantially different from what was originally deleted. Having compared the two versions, I believe that this article is sufficiently different. In addition, CSD G4 doesn't apply to previous speedy deletions, anyway (although the normal solution is just to argue that the original reasons for speedy deletion still apply, so it is a moot point). Thus the two questions to me are whether or not the article, as it stands, is blatant advertising (I'd say not), or if it has failed to signify why the subject matter was important (I'm presuming the coverage makes that case).
At any rate, DRV may be the way to go, but as it is substantially different the question isn't whether an old deletion should be undone, but whether a new article is ok. I'm not sure that this is the correct role for DRV, but I may be wrong there. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we nominate a proposed article for DRV? Also, from what I've read the correct procedure is to move back to mainspace when reliable sources become available. It doesn't have to go through DRV to get back into Wikipedia. LirazSiri (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the new sources, the best thing would be moving to mainspace and then inmediately nominating to AFD. (however, I'd wait a few months to see if new sources appear on the meanwhile. The article could fail AfD in its current state) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it might fail AfD? It cites multiple reliable sources. Is my bias blinding me to something? LirazSiri (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it because most sources look like passing mentions, name checks (blindly covering all packages released in a certain week/month independently of their relative importance) and press releases. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go quite that far. The InformationWeek article is based on a press release, presumably, but it also has a byline and would normally speak to notability. The Inforworld.nl article isn't too bad, either - it predates the March press release, I believe, so I'd count it separately. That aside, predicting which way AfD will go is a tad tricky. One or two more good articles would make it a whole lot safer, and I don't see much need to rush. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, AfDs are tricky, and waiting would be wisest --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

[edit]

Tags exist to encourage discussion of article problems. Simply adding tags to an article without describing the problems, if the problem is obscure and not blatantly obvious, is less than useless; it makes for an ugly encyclopedia page with no redeeming value. An editor placed tags on this article, another removed them, and the same editor just restored them. I have reverted this, but if the editor will detail the objections here, and if they are not objections that were already addressed, I would personally allow the tags. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the tags as they seem fairly obvious. Someone with a clear COI has been heavily involved, so the text needs review. The notability of the products seem to be questionable, and the article seems akin to an infomercial at present. It is now tagged appropriately. By "I would personally allow the tags" I assume you mean self revert? Verbal chat 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Verbal. I meant that I would not object. Self-revert, maybe. I would also have consented to reversion by the other editor, if he had justified the tags in Talk, but that other editor is running on the edge as to revert warring, and it was better that you did it. I was objecting to blanket tagging without comment on Talk. You have now commented. And this has been happening across a number of articles and pages. I'm not attached to some conclusion. (COI with volunteer projects is a bit edgy, i.e., not so totally clear as if there were a financial interest, but I've advised the editor to act as if he has a COI.) --Abd (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote above isn't untrue, but the editor, LirazSiri, is an officer of TurnkeyLinux, "an Israeli startup."[5]. My belief is that we should welcome such editors, at the same time as we are careful to advise them about behavioral guidelines for COI editors. We need their expertise, and it's up to the rest of us to contain their enthusiasm, so to speak, without driving them away. My experience with LirazSiri was that he was responsive, but he's still naive about Wikipedia practice and policy. He needs help. I thank you for whatever assistance you can give him, with the images, for example. You were also correct about advice you gave him re the user pages of other editors. He can, I'm sure, provide whatever necessary permissions are needed for his own work, and would probably know about the derivative aspects; after all, it's his business. --Abd (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the journalist that talked to me got it wrong, I guess they're used to dealing with officers from various companies. I sent him an email about it later but I guess it wasn't a serious enough error to edit the published article.LirazSiri (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not so fast, actually. It seems the original sources, including the one above, may have been misleading. According to the TurnKey Linux site,[6] Liraz Siri and the other founders were engineers at "Sterile Security, a stealth-stage startup dedicated to bringing innovative Linux-based solutions to the masses (don't tell anyone - SHH!)", which was apparently the "Israeli startup" mentioned. I'm sure that you call can be trusted to keep the secret. It does not appear that Siri is employed by some company called "TurnKey Linux." There may be a COI, certainly the kind of involvement calling for caution, but not as clear as if he were an employee. He's a volunteer, on the face of it, with the rest of the engineers that started the TurnKey Linux community. I think it's pretty likely that the derivative logos were used with permission, but we'll let LS sort that out, I presume. One step at a time. --Abd (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, Sam, please try to keep your responses factual and free of sniping. It will make them shorter and is less likely to get the other party wound up. this includes civil baiting. Let's just not go there, please. Verbal chat 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to be an employee for there to be a COI - it could be a friend or family member, your religion, or even just something you associate with like your country of birth. As for conflicted editing, sure - that's why I wrote WP:WHYCOI. -- samj inout 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Sam. Please reread what I wrote, carefully, if you think you contradicted it. Interesting that you mention WP:WHYCOI. I just cited it below, before I saw this. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged out of spite not genuine concern for the quality of its content. SamJohnston has a public dispute with me for his edit warring [7] on the cloud computing template and this is his way of punishing me for disagreeing with him. He's a bully who has made public threats on Twitter to have the article deleted. Note that I created a non-anonymous account to faciliate transparency regarding my involvement with TurnKey when creating the article. On Wikipedia transparency works in theory but in practice it's just used against you by anyone with an axe to grind (e.g., my editorial conflict with SamJ on whether or appliances is a valid category in cloud computing). Which is why I took extra care to stick to the facts while editing this article. I don't think my involvement poisons any content I write on the subject. If there are real issues with the article let's talk about how to fix them (or just fix them). Otherwise they should be removed. LirazSiri (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sterile Security

[edit]

Sterile Security, which ABD mentions above, has Liraz Siri listed as "Owner / Partner" here : http://www.fastcompany.com/user/liraz-siri . The Sterile Security web site linked to from the TurnKey Linux web site appears to have no pages; this Google search as of 2010-2-25 returns no hits except the empty home page.

FYI, Fast company's database is crap. You shouldn't rely on it for anything.LirazSiri (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's kinda looking to me like it might be Liraz Siri's full time job to promote and work on TurnKey Linux. That ought to be taken into account when making decisions about this article, along with the fact that most of the Google hits for "TurnKey Linux" appear to be the result of efforts to promote the software rather than from anyone actually using it. Note also the re-branding of the various applications such as "TurnKey DokuWiki" and "TurnKey MediaWiki", along the lines of the rebranded logos that Verbal removed.

Whether this is a genuine volunteer project or a business venture there definitely appears to be a major marketing effort going on here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, no part of my job is to promote TurnKey. I'm a software engineer not a marketdroid. TurnKey isn't a company and it doesn't make any money. It's a community open source project. Like FireFox. Spreading the word about the project helps bring users into our community so I take an interest in that. You know like the Mozilla foundation takes interest in spreading the word about Firefox. As to whether anyone is actually using TurnKey, we have many thousands of users in our community. Check out our forums. Also, try googling more thoroughly and you will find glowing recommendations of the project from people who are totally uninvolved with it.
  • TurnKey + appliance name is just a shorthand for TurnKey Linux's Joomla appliance. There is no rebranding. At most you might consider the appliance logo template co-branding but we keep the application logo clearly separate from the project logo on the bottom. We help promote the open source projects we turn into appliances and make it easier for users to enjoy them. Contributors to other projects appreciate this and promote TurnKey in turn: http://demo.joomla.org/turnkey.html. That single endorsement from Joomla introduces us to more users a day than Wikipedia does in a month, and with none of the drama. Frankly if you deleted the Wikipedia article tomorrow I don't think we would be able to measure the difference. LirazSiri (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sterile Security is a company. Liraz Siri is an engineer there and may indeed be an owner or partner. However, Sterile Security is not TurnKey Linux. It is a company which allowed employees (if we assume employee instead of partner) to work on the free software. Basically, Sterile Security is a kind of donor, just as other major companies have allowed employees to work on other open-source software projects, with some level of company support. It doesn't look like there is any money in TurnKey Linux. Where is there something to buy? As to "major marketing effort," for someone enthusiastic about an open software project they have worked on or supported to talk it up is hardly a "major marketing effort." That would require spending money. With money, you can get articles written, it isn't difficult. Without it, it's harder!
Given what TurnKey Linux is, the "rebranding" seems appropriate, though we should confirm that LS had permission to use those logos (assuming permission was necessary). I don't see evidence of "full time job" here, though some volunteers do pour in that kind of time. Kind of like some Wikipedia editors. In any case, this is all moot. The issue is notability and "marketing effort" is actually irrelevant. To be notable TurnKey Linux must be covered, generally, in more than one reliable source to meet notability guidelines, with more than a passing mention.
  1. The InfoWorld Bossie can be considered to be one of those, because of the specific notability conferred by such an award or notice.
  2. InformationWeek WorkswithU is a newsletter with an interview with LS, not merely a press release turned into an article. Perhaps they do intend to make money with this, providing application support. People do that.
  3. IT World is edited, submissions must meet standards.
  4. there are other sources discussed in the DRV cited below.
I'm getting an impression of sufficent notability. This article lived in my user space for a time. It had been speedy deleted when an IP editor vandalized it, bringing it to the notice of an admin. The speedy was confirmed by two DRV filings, but then, after the article had been worked on, it was accepted in a third DRV and moved -- not by LS! -- back to article space. So my impression confirms that of the DRV. I think an AfD would conclude the same now, notability does not decline or expire, once notable, always notable. --Abd (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is without doubt, company or no company, a serious conflict here that is resulting in a myriad wikipedia policies (not to mention laws) being broken. -- samj inout 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(not to mention laws)"? WTF? So now I'm not just an evil spammer, I'm a criminal as well? Haven't you gone far enough? Is it too much to expect more restraint and civility from an "experienced Wikipedia editor"? It's sad because going over your online presence (e.g., blog, linked-in, twitter) it seems we have much in common. If it were not for your naked aggression and arrogant dismissiveness I think we could have resolved our differences without any of the hostile tension that has since built up. Instead of wasting more energy in conflict I propose we both cool down and invite you to discuss our editorial dispute on the cloud computing template. I can't appreciate whether your arguments against an appliances section have any merit because YOU HAVEN'T SHARED THEM. When you unilaterally dismiss someone's arguments without even bothering to present your own counter-arguments that is a guaranteed recipe for conflict. Throw in a few public threats and here we are. This is a waste of human potential. LirazSiri (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible for people who write technical content to avoid COI problems; even in scientific conferences it runs all the way through. Sam is involved in cloud computing work, so he has to tread carefully too. Arguing isn't going to work. The article could be improved, we need to think about how better to add various technologies under the cloud computing tag without giving technologies that arent -yet- that notable too much coverage, yet without removing them altogether. After all, a better wikipedia is the goal here, and one with good articles and good indexing achieves that goal better than just deleting things. SteveLoughran (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To their credit the quality of this article is pretty much the only thing keeping me from nominating it for deletion. The trademark issue is very serious though - there are criminal *and* civil penalties for trademark abuse (even using the ® symbol on something which is not a registered trademark is a criminal offense in Australia for example). While I can understand that they didn't realise you can't go instructing Wikipedia to distribute others' trademarks under a liberal license, repeatedly reverting our efforts to remediate the problem is inexcusable and reason in itself for a block. And Steve, if you wanting to be calling me out for conflicts you'll want to have a smoking gun (read: policy violations). As for appliances in the big scheme of things, they are but one small component of one of three layers and do not deserve to be listed at the top level. No way. -- samj inout 23:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your concern regarding our compliance with trademark laws. Note that Australian law does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world. Also you may have a point regarding the wikipedia tags associated with the images. There might have been some room for improvement there. Unfortunately when you use HotCat the way you do you create a zillion edits and it is easy for the signal to get lost in the noise.
  • Regarding the last sentence on where appliances fit in the big scheme of things let's keep that discussion on the cloud computing template's talk page. LirazSiri (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, I'm ignoring all trademark stuff, just worrying about keeping the cloud computing template under control. I've put appliances into the template as a tech, along with virtualization, distributed filesystems. If you look at the history, I was the first one to stamp on that list. As for COI, everyone has bias. We all push against stuff we don't think is right. I think it may have a place, but it's just part of the story. For some infrastructures where the IO performance hit of VMs is deemed an acceptable price to pay for the agility you gain. SteveLoughran (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, thanks for weighing in. I've responded to your comments on the content of the cloud computing template on that entry's talk page. The discussion here is noisy enough as it is. LirazSiri (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LirazSiri, listen to yourself talk: "That single endorsement from Joomla introduces us to more users a day than Wikipedia does in a month..." I don't doubt that you do coding and testing and other work too - like anyone in a startup does, you probably wear many hats - but you are definitely marketing Turnkey Linux and you are acting as a "marketdroid" as you call it. This article, the Turnkey Twitter feed and other outlets, your focus on introducing new users to your product that involved the very many promotional posts all across the web you've made during the last year and a half - this is what a marketing campaign is. Creating the combo Turnkey - app logos is called "cobranding", for example. (Ooops, I just noticed that you acknowledged above that it's cobranding.)
And this is true even if this isn't the sole occupation of Sterile Security. But as I said above it seems pretty likely to me that Sterile Security doesn't do much more than donate the services of you and others as tech people and as marketers to Turnkey Linux and nothing you have said dissuades me from thinking that - in fact you pretty obviously avoided saying anything about Sterile Security in your responses above.
I didn't say anything about notability, despite the scramble above to justify the notability of the article. But this article is quite obviously part of a marketing effort to expose as many users as possible to Turnkey Linux - LirazSiri at least did not refrain from demonstrating that this is a goal of his - and probably a part of promoting it in other ways. And that needs to be taken into account when making decisions about this article, that's what I'm saying. (Even if, as LirazSiri says, it's generated fewer hits than the Joomla page he references.)
(Re-reading above, I'm not even sure LirazSiri is disagreeing that the article is a marketing vehicle for Turnkey Linux, he may just object to being thought of as someone working on marketing, which I can sympathize with; but that's what's going on.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TurnKey_Linux_Virtual_Appliance_Library/Archive&oldid=1044789811"