Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabbix

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Ok, first of all, this AfD is a giant mess. Between the inappropriate off-site canvassing attracting a horde of

WP:TNT
, however the article has already been practically rewritten during the course of the AfD, so deleting it with the intention of rewriting it would seem pointless now.

My advice would be to continue the current efforts to improve the article, and reassess in a month or two. If there are still notability concerns after reasonable efforts to improve the article, then bring it back to AfD and hopefully have a fresh discussion that is not tainted by canvassing. I would also swiftly apply a

WP:CANVAS again to ensure that they are fully familiar with guidelines surrounding canvassing. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Zabbix

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Zabbix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have seen this thread too and it seems to rather prefer to attack User:Beetstra instead of wanting to understand the reason for the removal request.
Furthermore there has been an addition to that thread in which again the focus is on the who and how instead of the why the AfD was triggered. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is completely self serving promotion. No independent references to show notability. Most of this article is its own history, its own features and its own development. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I went through the long history of the article and noted edits by many single-purpose IPs and named accounts. I have thus also tagged the article with some applicable tags. None of the versions I checked had proper references, but many versions were even more spammy/promotional than the currently standing versions. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: What kind of reliable sources? It's an open-source monitoring system, how exactly are you going to assess its usage and popularity if not from customer experience? Even GitHub has more stars for Zabbix than Nagios:
https://github.com/zabbix/zabbix
https://github.com/NagiosEnterprises/nagioscore
You, on the other hand, have not yet stated your reasons for proposed deletion based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion Please do.
----
With regards to notability: On one of Kaspersky pages they write "This monitors and sends extensive information about the SVM's health status to third-party SNMP monitoring tools like Zabbix and Nagios.". So when this well known security company set out to give examples of monitoring software that can be used together with their offerings, Zabbix is one of two concrete examples they give.
And how popular are each of those? Looking at job offering in England, in the same order of magnitude:
Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZDNet lists Zabbix and it is on the list of reliable sources: https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-network-monitoring-tool/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Sin2x (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that is a good one, I added this in the article. Larcorba 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sin2x: not in depth, but that is certainly a start. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When not to use the deletion process - Articles that are in bad shape" This applies to this article. Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If an article is beyond help, it should be deleted, but try fixing the POV first." This article is not beyond help, thus deleting it is wrong. Hlovdal (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator should be following
      WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  1. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sarbanes_Oxley_IT_Compliance_Using_Open/5_pbDhDdxLAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PA357&printsec=frontcover
  2. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Linux_Server_Hacks_Volume_Two/iAh6mU_sjgsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PA371&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Zabbix%20monitoring
  3. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ansible_Up_and_Running/TZMtDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PT447&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Zabbix%20monitoring
  4. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Debian_Administrator_s_Handbook_Debi/xmfTCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PA346&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Zabbix%20monitoring
  5. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cloud_Computing_Bible/aY4Kil7kbIcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zabbix%20monitoring&pg=PA120&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Zabbix%20monitoring

Next time you run a notable software app through the AfD process, please follow WP:BEFORE or just use

WP:PROD so we can discuss the notability beforehand. This is a huge waste of time for everyone involved and the software is notable. riffic (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Thanks for these, added them and a reference to Zabbix notable customisability to the page in the community section. Larcorba 20:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both Patrik and Luciano (Edit: I mistaked Luciano, he does work for them now) do not work for Zabbix SIA, Zabbix LLC or any other Zabbix subsidiaries. I as well do not work for Zabbix directly, but I do work for a Zabbix partner. I am one of the authors of the Zabbix 5 and upcoming Zabbix 6 cookbook, which we fully write in our free/spare time. We supply these books to the community, because it is important that the product has these community resources available. We are talking about a 100% free and Opensource product, where the purchase of any support, consultancy or training is fully optional, thus community resources like books, blogs, Reddit and even Wikipedia are important. It all supplies any community users with a place to find information about the product. Most resources you will find are written and/or supplied by the Zabbix community. Definitely not a good thing to remove the Wiki page, and even if this was paid software like PRTG or Datadog there are Wikipedia pages. Deletion seems completely unjustified. As well, maybe this helps as an independent resource of popularity: Google trends Larcorba 07:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) — Larcorba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Made some changes to the page, hopefully this helps! Larcorba 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Patrik and Luciano, like you, work for Zabbix partners. Do I have to work out the dependence of these writers explicitly? And Popularity != Notability. Please provide truly independent (and reliable) sources showing notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful? You doubled the number of references that solely rely on the subject's own words from 22 to 44, and not supplied a single truly independent source. Let alone an independent reliable source.
    As per below for user:5GZPPwkICWU, may I know how you arrived at this AfD at your very first edit? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All claims added by Users or the Zabbix team that were either vague, unjustifiable or simply not true have been removed from the article. On top of that, quoting sources like the official documentation of a product is definitely a reliable source, especially in the Opensource software community. As well, I included a new section including community resources to guide the community to resources there. @Beetstra: As of now, I think you are finding yourself with no other people to back up your claim as to why this page would still need removal. For all we know you might be the user of another product claiming that the page needs removal simply out of spite. As per the Wikipedia community guidelines we would need an independent third party to review, otherwise the discussion will simply be closed after 7 days and the page will remain as is. Now to stay on the topic of the page, if you have any additional constructive feedback or suggestions I would be happy to make some more changes to the page. Larcorba 14:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larcorba: They are reliable to a certain extend indeed. They are however not independent, and that is needed for showing notability. The article is still completely self-serving. The discussion will stay open for another 6 days, and this is not a vote, it is a discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Larcorba on this, it seems weird to remove the page after the changes Larcorba made. 5GZPPwkICWU 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC) — 5GZPPwkICWU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @5GZPPwkICWU: can you please explain to me how you found this discussion on your first edit? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Yes, I can, but I don't see how that adds value to this discussion on deleting this page or not. Just FYI; I am not working at the company Zabbix, nor here to introduce 'self promotion' for the product or company. Larcorba made changes(well, an overhaul of the page), where it seems the self promotion is not present anymore?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5GZPPwkICWU (talk • contribs)
    @5GZPPwkICWU: Yes, it does add value. No, the edits by Lacorba did not make it better in term of self promotion, notability needs independent sourcing, and all those edits did was doubling the number of dependent sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - I admit I shared this AfD to the /r/Zabbix subreddit (referring to the off-site canvassing notice at the top). I had no intentions of "canvassing" and have modified my statement on Reddit stating that deletion discussions are not votes. I have read WP:CAN and will follow this as closely as appropriate.
    Please don't template my talk page. riffic (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have no horse to race on this AFD but if you read
    WP:AGF when defending this article to be kept. SunDawntalk 07:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'll be more careful down the road about off-site notifications and keeping a neutral tone. I sincerely hope that I did not tank the merits of this own discussion
    with my actions, however I still stand that the 5 Google book citations are way more than adequate to establish notability from independent and reliable sources. IMO this should be a withdrawn AfD. It'd be nice to have the nominator admit and act accordingly. riffic (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Beetstra: And how can the information be 100% independent, not biased be for you? Any article written be it on the internet be it in a book is always biased in some way as the author will have a certain view about the product and so his own opinion be it correct or wrong. btw I am Patrik the author of the 2 Zabbix books. I have no connection with Zabbix LLC. The company I work for is Open-Future a Zabbix partner yes but we don't get money from Zabbix..... . But the books have been written in my own free time. How more independent do you want it?
Do you want a book from someone who has never worked with Zabbix? There is nothing wrong with the article all information on it is correct. The style how it was written was maybe a bit of self promoting but it's wikipedia ... adapt it or ask ppl to change the style.
Deleting this article imho is worse. You don't erase an article about the holocaust because it was written by a yew or a nazi. That's just erasing valuable information. You just ask an independent person to verify it and correct it if it needs corrections. It's not because its written by someone who uses the product that the information if false or misleading. If you google there is more then enough information to confirm what has been written on this page. --Trikke76 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Trikke76 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
And note, I am not asking that the article only needs to have independent sourcing and that we need to get rid of all primary sourcing - there is nothing wrong with primary sources, but for an article to exist on Wikipedia it also needs independent sources. Primary sources alone do not show notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beetstra:Seems like we have fixed your independent resources issue though, supplying enough references to verify Zabbix as a notable piece of software and a addition to the information on Wikipedia instead of a promotional (your words not mine) page. Seems to me that the discussion can be ended right here or you should provide some constructive pieces of 'let's call it advice' as to how we could further improve the article. Larcorba 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the Template:Primary_sources template to the page because that is the correct level of reaction to its content. Deleting is a massive overreaction. Hlovdal (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Monitoring Docker, Russ McKendrick, Packt Publishing, December 2015. Chapter 4 is an in-depth guide on using Zabbix and I'll quote, "Out of the these three options, Zabbix seemed to be the most straightforward one at the time. It was doing enough work to manage the several hundred servers I was going to monitor without having to have the extra work of learning the complexities of setting up Nagios or Zenoss; after all, given the task the software had, I needed to be able to trust that I had set it up correctly. In this chapter, while I am going to go into some detail about the setup and the basics of using Zabbix, we will only be touching on some of the functionalities, which can do a lot more than just monitor your containers."
  2. Perschke, Susan (Sep 12, 2018). "REVIEW: Zabbix delivers effective, no-frills network monitoring". Network World. IDG.
  3. Sarbanes-Oxley IT Compliance Using Open Source Tools. Elsevier Science. December 19, 2007. p. 356. ISBN 9780080557274.

To speak a bit towards the calls to

WP:TNT the article, that'd be fine as long as an immediate rewrite with the found references asserting notability were to be added. However, let me quote from WP:TNTTNT
, "If the article could be reverted to any past version, then deletion is not valid." There already has been a call by the nominator to revert to the first version. Nothing's stopping anyone from doing this now and calling this AfD off. riffic (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • I created Zabbix#Security_vulnerabilities to add more critical parts of the software to counterweight the bias. Discussion about the changes itself please on the talk page. I agree that the article is mostly promotional and should be improved. Although I disagree with User:Beetstra RfD process since Zabbix is a cornerstone of IT landscape and in use for decades, I agree with the reasoning he was presenting so far. I would keep the pressure on Zabbix LLC to improve the article by themselves. The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no editing by Zabbix LLC. That is part of the problem in the first place: this article is a, as MrOllie describes it, trainwreck because of the many promotional edits. This article needs a proper overhaul by subjects who do not have an agenda to push, and certainly not by editors who have a conflict of interest (let alone those who are editing in violation of the Terms of Use.
    Counterweighting the bias is not solving the problem of the article, and I do not think that notices of secrity vulnerabilities are enough to show notability, nor do mentions in blogs. The mainstream references mentioned above are better (though some are rather thin, more mentions and/or popularity vote counting which can be influenced). Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GavriilaDmitriev: Nice to see that addition, nice going! @Beetstra: So, what's your exact problem still with the page? The promotional stuff is gone, sources have been fixed, additional independent sources are added. Where's your constructive feedback? On a related note, if Zabbix makes edits that are fair and add to the value in an independent way I don't see why they couldn't. As long as they stay neutral in their edits. Larcorba 11:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Larcorba: '... as long as they stay neutral in their edits ...' - the article was a promotional piece, they did not stay neutral. And in the way they did it it is in direct violation of Mediawikis Terms of Use. So there is clearly a reason why they couldn't.
Regarding the article, I beg to differ. It is still a self serving piece of material, a trainwreck. It does not in any form comply with the standards that we have for articles.
Dirk Beetstra T C 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Okay, sorry I should rephrase as long as they stay neutral in their edits of the page in the future. I agree it was promontional and self serving, I do not agree it is self-serving any longer, at least not more than the PRTG, Nagios or Datadog pages are. I'm still waiting on constructive feedback from your side.. What exact part is not up to your Wikipedia standards, we've been making the edits you suggested and all you can say is that it's not good enough without providing reason. We can't change anything based on your feedback, thus it is a NULL argument and cannot be used as a reason for deletion.Larcorba 12:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that other pages do the same is not a reason for this page to do it as well (and I already said that the Nagios pages was only marginally better). The only thing that means is that maybe PRTG, Nagios and Datadog also need a massive overhaul (if they are worth rescueing in the first place). What is not appropriate, the massive number of primary references in comparison to independent secondary sources. Marginal secondary sourcing (and books are not secondary sourcing, they are not evidence of notability). Tone of language, non-encyclopedic information. Promotional text. Inappropriate use of linking (you basically reinserted things I removed as spam). An indiscriminate list of features. It is a mess and it has only become more of a mess since the start of this AfD. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@user:rsjaffe can I get a reason why my addition was deleted in this change together with content from other editors? You mentioned cruft where I clearly don't belong to since I made a critical claim in my addition. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, there are major violations of
    WP:THREE independent secondary sources, I would reconsider but absent that, it should be deleted.Slywriter (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:THREE is something constructive I can work with, thanks for that. Let me gather (at least) three notable resources and get back to you on that one. Once I have some personal free time, I'll take another look (probably this weekend) and place them in this thread.--Larcorba (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
zabbix should have a Wikipedia article, I just don't think it is this one. The authors seem confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. The article should discuss why zabbix is notable and what it is. Instead, it reads like a ambiguous feature list. Software that isn't notable also has features. This article is pointless and you know more about zabbix by reading the Nagios article. 2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At any point any of us can wipe away the page to its very first revision and start from scratch with adding just the independent, reliable sources found via this AFD process. That'd be a better choice than deletion, which at this point would be disruptive considering the subject's notability (which we both agree is not in dispute). riffic (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has occurred. MarshallKe (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zabbix&oldid=1074354587"