Talk:Asturix

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 24 July 2018, see discussion.
no consensus, August 1 2013, see discussion.
delete, June 2 2013, see discussion.

Archives

Discussion about revertions[edit]

This page is being reverted continuously without any reason given (apart from a ad hominem point). What's wrong with the article? --Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting tags[edit]

A share of the article is written with material backed by the (now defunct) pages http://asturix.com/blog/, http://asturix.and http://asturix.com/. Even when some material refer to third-party sources, the asturix.com is cited citing the third-party source. For example, citing the Spanish TV RTVE - cite web|url=http://asturix.com/blog/2013/01/27/asturix-by-luis-ivan-cuende-header-in-telediario-rtve-news/. I suggest to remove all material which has only asturix.com/org as source.

It is also necessary to link the other sources through archive.org, if reliable.

--Llaanngg (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why removed material cited to asturix.com/org? Is the information from there wrong? Primary sources are considered authoritative on the subject for factual information, just not for opinion and reviews. For example General Motors data on their cars is considered authoritative, for horsepower, sales numbers, etc. See WP:PRIMARY. I count 21 independent third party sources here, so it obviously meets WP:N requirements and obviously repudiates the "one source" tags you put on here. If third party sources quote or cite primary sources then that is fine, they will have verified the information as the third party sources have editorial oversight. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is also not third party sources using primary sources. It's more like the information about third party sources comes filtered through asturix.

And the information there is in some cases dubious.

If it's open source, where is the source hosted?

Has RTVE covered the story? If yes, it should be linked directly, not just linked to Asturix claiming its OS was mentioned.

Was Asturix a finalist at the Campus party like http://asturix.com/blog/2010/04/18/la-innovacion-de-asturix-presente-en-campus-party-europa-3/ claims?

And http://revistalinux.net/articulos/asturix-por-la-comunidad-y-para-la-comunidad/ is a press release for example. Should we count this as independent sources too?

Many of the third party sources are not necessarily authoritative in the Linux field. They might be valid for a WP:N claim though, but not as a source of information. DistroWatch might be an exception, but http://blip.tv, for example, is that a reliable source?

Has Asturix organized the Youth and Free Culture with Open Source Software?

Has it been endorsed by Creative Commons Spain? Or is that just an announcement of an event?

Those are all sources associated to asturix or asturix itself.

However, I agree that primary sources are authoritative for factual information about themselves. Equally, I agree that this is not a WP:N issue.Llaanngg (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well it sounds like those questions need addressing through finding more sources and expanding the article further. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is no hurry to remove anything, nor to ax everything from the asturix site. It's more a question of improving such points (among others) or removing if they are hopeless.Llaanngg (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable approach. The article is not that bad as it is right now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asturix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://asturix.com/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20130727085234/http://asturix.com:80/ on http://asturix.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]