Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixhawk

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. asilvering (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixhawk

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

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

currently, there are zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's lots of results in Google Books and Google Scholar. None of is enough? I could not get access to many of them, so I couldn't fully assess. MarioGom (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The main issue here seems to be lack of independent sources covering the standard. There are quite a few academic references, but the only highly cited papers seem to be the original publications on the standard. If someone finds better sources, ping me and I'll likely shift my vote as it looks like there is some research on this for use in military (i.e. Ukrainian) drone programs. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engaging participation here to discuss above comments. If someone can add sources here as suggested and evaluate them, the discussion will see a clear consensus. If needed, ping me, I will take part in the evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article already has sufficient citations to establish notability. The first citation is an independent source that notes the importance of Pixhawk; it is from a conference proceeding, which is lower tier than a journal article, but still written by academics, peer reviewed for importance and published in a IEEE publication. It wouldn't hurt to have more than one really good independent academic source, but that's already more than many articles could hope for. Some of the other citations are from the Ardupilot and PX4 documentation, which are the most significant implementations of Pixhawk, and indirectly show notability of the technology through their own notability. (The remaining citations are from Pixhawk documentation, which are useful but not relevant for proving notability.)

An earlier comment said that a web search doesn't turn anything up. In fact, a quick search shows a thriving ecosystem of Pixhawk implementations. This is analogous to how a quick search for "keyboard" wouldn't turn up an article about the importance of keyboards, because they are so widespread that the results are flooded with results about actual keyboards you may wish to buy.

Regarding the original submission by Onel5969 (talk · contribs): that editor originally blanked the article and replaced with a redirect. Their talk page is filled with objections that they are overzealously doing this and not notifying relevant editors. They even deleted my comment on their talk page asking them (very politely) to be less disruptive. They submitted this AfD when I reverted this change; this seems to be a retaliatary action, which is not a valid reason for an AfD nomination. Their own user page openly admits that they often blank or AfD an article purely to provoke other editors to make edits rather than a genuine belief about the notability of articles. Of course this AfD discussion must be made on its own merits but I think their starting comment should be read with this context in mind. Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding the above !vote. Yet more attacking language from this editor. The nomination was not retaliatory, but rather reactive to your simply restoring the substandardly cited article with no improvement. I waited a day to see if you intended to bring it up to standard, and you made no attempt. In fact, you still have failed to do so. And Anonrfjwhuikdzz's evaluation is still spot on.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hoping to generate some more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor opposing redirection or deletion is indeed correct that it "wouldn't hurt" to have more than one independent source providing direct and in-depth coverage about the topic considering that is, in fact, the requirement. Not meeting that requirement, we have to seek alternatives. It may be possible to selectively merge from history into a future more general article about UAV flight controllers... which the linked UAV-systems hardware chart is not. At present, I am inclined to recommend restoring the redirect to NuttX#Projects using NuttX as a placeholder until such an article could be written. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by "selectively" I mean, without the stuff that falls under WP:NOT. Please. I'm sorry, but this isn't the place for a summary of all of the Pixhawk documentation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Although this article has significant style issues, the project is definitely notable. The paper that introduced it has 598 citations according to google scholar and it's received a decent amount of academic attention. This should be tagged for cleanup, but does not need to be deleted. FalconK (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2025 (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.