Talk:GNATS
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Removed tag "multiple issues" edit
I've removed this tag:
{{multiple issues| {{notability|Products|date=March 2013}} {{self-published|date=March 2013}} {{third-party|date=March 2013}} }}
As mentioned regarding notability in the nomination for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GNATS#GNATS), the references section contains a dozen links including websites and webpages by non-related universities, a developer at CERN, and independent developers.
All these independent sources are by definition not "self-published".
And they are also all by definition "third-party". Gronky (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Per the AFD discussion where the majority of folks currently feel that the notability issues are so strong that the article should be deleted, I've restored the notability tag. Please don't remove it again.
- As far as the other tags, "archived gnats bug reports" hardly satisfy reliable third-party "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a strange summary. Since I added all the references, no one has questioned the article's notability. ...and I never said based my points on archived bug reports. I based my points on the collection of links in the references section, which also happens to include a link to the Apache Software Foundation's archive of their GNATS reports. I disagree with your tag and your revert, but unfortunately I have to use my limited time instead to contest what you've done to my home page. Gronky (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Afd over, removing the tag now edit
I, and the Afd, have now addressed the issues in the second "multiple issues" tag that was added:
- notability
- bare references
- relies on primary sources
The article was taken to Afd purely on notability grounds. It survived. There's no higher test it can pass. Secondly, all references are now {{cite web}} references, each with a quote from the referenced page. And lastly, the Afd discussion and result, along with the work I've done to expand the references, means there's no "reliance" on primary sources. A small number of primary sources are used, as allowed by WP policies, but most sources are secondary and enough are tertiary.
If any similar tags are to be re-added, please also specify what authority has to be asked for confirmation so that people developing this article can know who has to be satisfied in order for the tag to be removed. As far as I can tell, the Afd would be that body/process.
The Afd was closed with "keep". After appeal from the submitter, this was downgraded to "no consensus", but this is still a passing grade, the article stays. I won't bother counter-appealing, but if I did, I'd ask the closer if he noticed that two "delete" votes were by the same person. Anyway, GNATS passed the Afd test, and I've further improved the article and its references, so I've removed the tag. Gronky (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Current development - Aug 2014 edit
It seems work is being done on the interface:
Plans for future work shouldn't be in the article, but I wanted to note it here in case someone sees this in the future and could check to see if something concrete came of it. Gronky (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)