The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect to Linaro#Linaro Community Board Group. It is possible that reliable independent sources could be found to support this article; the content can be developed at the redirect target until then. The preferences of editors in this discussion who have limited Wikipedia contribution histories is considered, but given little weight due to their likely unfamiliarity with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. bd2412 T 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

96Boards[edit]

96Boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article had references, but they were entirely either from the subject's site itself (constituting a primary source and original research), or simple tutorials which mentioning the subject in passing, and were removed. Leaving this an entirely unsourced article. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Dunno — I was in -en-help when the author dropped by, so I thought I should chime in with what I found, as this seems to be a weird sort of borderline area. As a specification, there's other stuff that's adhering to it (e.g., the Dragonboard 410c seems to have a lot of buzz as the 2nd Win10 board; another one), but the press only tends to mention the specification in passing. There are a couple of sources like this, which we're more looking for, but the vast majority of the others are either other boards or non-independent. Like, you've got things like this from intel, but that's not really critical analysis or useful for anything other than an extlink. sort of mentions it. Anyway, it sorta feels like it could have an article, but I guess it could just as easily be merged + redirected to Linaro until it gets more direct coverage. I'm neutral otherwise. --slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you slakr for the review, feedback and suggestions. I would like to update you and those who would be voting on this page for AfD.

• Addressing "COI" tag — Primary contributor (myself) has declared transparency on both User page and Talk page of page in question. This page has also seen some external contributions. I move this tag not be taken into account when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:55PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
• Addressing "Orphan tag" — Since this pages conception links to page has increased, this will continue to increase if the page remains live and this community has something to link too. I believe cross links to the information in this page in necessary to many other Wikipedia articles and organizations. I move this tag not be taken into account when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:5PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
• Addressing "Notability" tag — From what I understand to be the most important. Siting the clause under "Primary criteria" of the Notability Guidelines under "Depth of Coverage": "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" Since the AfD was issued, several strong reference have been added that should have increased 96Boards notability substantially. I would encourage anyone who take part in this voting to consider these changes, and the additions/changes to come. The 96Boards community is lively, vibrant, and well known in many circles. This Wikipedia page reflects a notable name that will only continue to grow, bringing many more Wikipedians into the fold as contributors. 96Boards is attached to so many articles and companies within Wikipedia, I can see that for every 96Boards Wikipedia contributor, you will have edits made to other pages in the effort to bring the right information to Wikipedia users. Please consider some of the following links to increase 96Boards notability: Link 1 &mdash Linke 2 &mdash Link 3 &mdash Link 4, all of which have been added as references to the 96Boards page. I move this tag be heavily reconsidered when voting for AfD. --Sdrobertw^\ talk / 3:55PM (UTC) 4 August 2017
• Comment Much like slakr, I've spoken with this user extensively in IRC -help, and find him to be a great potential asset to Wikipedia. That being said, the history of this page along with the what links here is telling. Literally every link to this page was either made by the author or an army of single purpose accounts. I found only one user who edited something other than this subject. But all came to action on the exact same week. The editor claimed in IRC, that this was due to a recent promotional campaign. I'm stretching my good faith in saying that's acceptable for one maybe two new account creations, but here's my list so far:

* Suihkulokki (the one user with other old edits)

* Ric96

* KickStartKid

* Rafaelchrist

* Hegallis

* Mani_sadhasivam

Now I know this isn't SPI, and the point here is to come to consensus regarding inclusion. But I feel most editors would find the above stated references lacking in denoting notability, either being from manufacturers of the product, or from very niche and/or obscure blogs. Bundling that with the duck meatpuppetry is what led me to submit this AfD initially. Anywho, hope this provides some insight. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 15:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents I'm not associated with linaro or 96boards, but I do use a lot of different arm SBCs in my upstream kernel and mesa work, including several 96boards. I think having a standardized arm SBC form-factor / cables / peripherals, like what the 96boards standard is doing, is notable and interesting. Robdclark (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I own a DragonBoard410c which follows 96Boards CE specifications. I am interested to learn more about the company their products and the support provide to developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovansurya (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I own a Dragonboard 410c, Hikey 960 and Mediatek X20, all of which are based on the 96Boards CE specifications. I would like to provide people with the knowledge of the existence of this community that is dedicated in the development of ARM based Single Board Computers. Sure the page may be small and the references aren't from likes of The New York Times or The Verge. But, It is a growing community and making headlines on smaller news outlets and online blogs. And on the topic of this being a single purpose account, I was not aware of the fact that this was a thing, and since have started contributing to other pages as well. As for the others, all I have to say is that the 96boards wiki page was announced on the IRC and hence the sudden boost of contributions within a week. Rest assured, this page will continue to grow and to be maintained by us, hopefully adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines, however vague they may be. Ric96 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• High quality article - The article may have been a valid candidate for deletion when the tag was added, but since then it is clear that there is a legitimate community here, and the article quality has improved accordingly. drue (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found. The issue at hand is not whether it has a "community" (I assume of *nix system builders/users) or whether it exists, but whether it has been written about at length in reliable sources. If the only sources available are how-to guides, name-drops, or their own website, then by the definition Wikipedia uses it is not notable and should be excluded until better sources come. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My search shows only passing mentions of "96Boards" standard in reliable sources - usually in coverage of individual boards. Linux.com offers a little bit more about "96Boards" standard: [1] But this is all user submited content, I think (note author of that article was staff member of PC World magazine). With such bad sourcing and SPA problems in this AfD, I´m not too eager to "vote" keep. However, I don´t think subject of the article should be removed entirely from Wikipedia. I would prefer a redirect to article about one of the boards, but there are none right now... Pavlor (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Linaro#Linaro Community Board Group until coverage warrants a standalone article. While this might be an interesting project down the road (perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies), a simple search doesn't bring up any mainstream coverage that suggests this is anything more than a fledgling effort. [[2]] [[3]] Indeed, the Linaro article says the board is under the Linaro Community Board Group, but that segment isn't listed as a segment group on their web site.[[4]] I reorganized the Linaro article and already merged some info there in case the closer prefers that option. I ignored the PIN functions and various mezzanines as overkill - if this info is truly important, readers would be better off going to the Linaro web site to get the latest specs. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also good with this solution, as per the reasons brought up. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.