JamVM has a wikipedia page. I didn't create it, and I'm not egotistical enough to maintain it in any way. However, I was less than impressed to see that somebody had taken it upon themselves to put the page forward for deletion. The reasons being that it hasn't had a recent release, and that it has no claim to notability.
I have tried to show that neither of these claims are true. For example, JamVM is the default VM on Ubuntu/ARM 11.10. I think this is both notable and recent! However, this doesn't seem to count, the debate being fixated on a claim on the page regarding Dalvik from a blog.
To be honest, I'm so disgusted with the process that I no longer care if the page is deleted. But if anybody else cares, please put a word in for JamVM.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The deletionists always spoil things. They killed Everything2, and they make Wikipedia less than it cold be. Buncha punks.
From my point of view wikipedia seems to be using an extremely specious definition of notability, which is in complete contradiction to their web page on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability.
Their assertion (quoting from the deletion page) that "Only claim to notability is based on an allegation from a blog that Google copied it", seems to be a strange stance to take given that there is ample secondary sources which reference JamVM, and AFAIK no-one has ever claimed the allegation referred to above makes JamVM notable. In other words their rationale for deleting JamVM seems to have no basis in fact whatsoever.
So what is going on here? One cannot help but being reminded of Displacement. In other words they seem to be so scared of (to quote from the deletion page) "potentially making a serious allegation" they want to remove the page on JamVM, but rather than admit to this, they're pretending the issue is one of notability.
I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions as to what this means for the credibility of wikipedia's deletion process.
Hi Robert, I'm actually quite surprised that noone has bothered to do the same to CACAO yet. The deletion is idiotic, but it seems to be almost impossible to stop that process.
Sadly once a Wikipedia deletionist gets hold of an article it seems doomed :{ There is a strange bureaucratic process around deletions of articles.
I added some comments to the talk page, but adding those now might actually make things worse :{ They might seen as vandalism by sock or meat puppets.
Really, they call "outside experts" that way if they add something to an article after it is marked for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Sockpuppeting_is_not_to_be_tolerated
Sigh.
Also I am surprised that people question that early versions of Android were based on JamVM. I thought that was common knowledge. Early documentation explicitly mentioned JamVM as the runtime used. See for example: http://web.archive.org/web/20091027081958/http://pdk.android.com/online-pdk/guide/debugging_native.html
As it turns out, I was not aware of the JamVM→dalvik heritage, and I *should* know… ;)
PS Why am I presented as “Unknown”? I’m Stefan Ring from CACAO.
Post a Comment