Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open source governance

:{{la|Open source governance}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Open source governance}})

A not yet notable topic, with original research, unreferenced, and it has had all of these issues since 2005 Reboot (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete How did it survive that long? I mean, the content sounds encyclopedic and believable, but then again, there's absolutely no reference. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 04:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

:Hmm, after reading some of the comments below I am now unsure. The article definitely needs more reference and possibly a major re-write. I think that it should be userfied and worked on until all the references are up to date. Or, as Fæ suggested below, strip it down to basics and start again from there. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Well argumented article with a potential to expand. – George Serdechny 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - It's written as an encyclopedic article, but it's a piece of original advocacy from open source enthusiasts. Lacks sources and misinterprets external links. It's really strange to see how it survived so long. --Damiens.rf 12:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I've had this on my watchlist for a long time. I think I meant to try to do something with it some day. In any case, most of the people looking for information on "open source governance" will be looking for information on open source software development, not an obscure proposed political system. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy for a massive re-write but only keep if someone strips this back to basics for a re-build. There is sufficient material in reliable sources for an article about the topic, not necessarily under this title as Open source democracy or Open source government (currently a redirect) are probably better bets for a term used in various reliable sources, e.g. {{citation | last=Rushkoff | first=Douglas | year=2003 | title=Open source democracy: how online communication is changing offline politics | publisher=Demos | isbn=9781841801131 }} and {{cite news |title=Calls for open source government |last=Shiels |first=Maggie |date=21 January 2009 |newspaper=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7841486.stm}} Fæ (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete This is a article that appears to have been written by some well meaning idealists to advocate their idea. It circularly references their site, but has little relevance or third-party sources. Maybe in a few years if they are successful it will go somewhere and have enough third party coverage to warrant a wikipedia page. At the moment it is not there. It doesn't matter if it is a "Well argumented article with a potential to expand" (above) because it is an essay of original research. It may belong somewhere...just not on wikipedia. Reboot (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Note: User is also nominator Gigs (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Open%20source%20governance%22&hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=,bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp] and academic journals [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Open%20source%20governance%22&hl=en&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps] A poorly written article needs improvement, not deletion. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• These searches show that the term "open source governance" is in practice not about a political philosophy (the topic of this article) but is invariably used in publications about managing software. There are many technical descriptions that put words in front of "governance" (e.g. "telecoms governance", "factory goverance", "sexual governance" can all be found in multiple reliable sources) but this is not a reason to create an article about these words slapped together, particularly when the sources have a completely different meaning to the article and so do not address the validation policy. Fæ (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y4pSz-Yf2sYC&pg=PA195&dq=politics+%22Open+source+governance%22&hl=en&ei=1zGxTbiTN4LCvQOCxa2DBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15&ved=0CHQQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q&f=false The book] gives a clear definition of the concept. [http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/helsinki/ws4/seferiades.pdf This paper] discusses the concept. --Reference Desker (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Hubbard and Paquet's book has a tangential mention as part of a discussion of regional platforms and has to explain the meaning, presumably because it is not a commonly accepted term. The PDF of a presentation given at a conference that you point to appears to be unpublished original research (the document is a draft) and though the term "open source governance" has their own original definition in that text, does not point out to any particular reliable source for an independent definition. Fæ (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There are three subjects here, only one of which is covered. This material is at the right title, but there is still need for disambiguation. Make two disambiguation pages, Open source government and Open source governance (disambiguation).

:Open source government should have this article on it, and also Government transparency on it, as these articles show: ([http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1446603051.html?dids=1446603051:1446603051&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+14%2C+2008&author=Anonymous&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=Online+sunshine+|+Open+database+of+state+spending+a+great+idea&pqatl=google Online sunshine: Open database of state spending a great idea], The San Diego Union - Tribune - San Diego, Calif, San Diego Tribune) and ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7910110.stm UK government backs open source], 25 February 2009, BBC). It also seems likely that the type and storage of government records are a large and well covered enough issue to deserve an article of its own, separate from Government transparency, in which case the former might replace the latter on the dab.

:Open source governance (disambiguation) should have this article, and Open source governance (software) on it, as Reference Desker's search for open source governance shows.

:I would also support making this article the one about software, and moving the current content to Open source governance (political philosophy), but it is more practical now to keep the article as it is, given that there is no content for software.

:There are two sources in the article given as external links rather than inline citations, and a boatload of references, under External Links. There may well be a corresponding rationale to Keep for every rationale to delete, and this article suffers from the reverse of WP:RECENTISM; the notability of the article exceeds the memory and knowledge of WP editors. As time goes on, I see more and more articles where the title has been coopted by another subject, and/or whose topics are notable enough, but require real research to find sources for. Anarchangel (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::Do you have any evidence that this topic "exceeds the memory and knowledge of WP editors"? My first job for a software house was in the 1980s and at school I was the first person in my county to take an O level in Computer Science as it was in the time before this was a topic taught in schools. I don't claim to ever know enough, but my memory is at least that far back and as a rationale this seems flawed and verging on the ad hominem. Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:::My argument is not ad hominem. The construction of it is neither simplistic and obviously erroneous, nor directed at a single person, nor directed at evidence of past misdoings. As for how editors should receive the criticism implicit in arguments in general, I advise the reverse of a common phrase: if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Anarchangel (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

::::In which case your argument would only be unverifiable being based on a claim about the general incompetence of all Wikipedia contributors, presumably including yourself. Fæ (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.