English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Gajim

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
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 keep. Tone 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gajim

Gajim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I am unable to locate non-trivial coverage of substance from reliable third party publications. While searching Google News archives and Google Books, I did come across this brief mention in the book "XMPP: The Definitive Guide" but nothing near substantial. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I tagged this as needing sources showing notability several weeks ago and nobody has touched it. Miami33139 (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • keep : This is bordering on silliness - Gajim is extremely well-known within the XMPP community, and used by some 20% of the XMPP users, see [1]. It's the first and only implementation of the experimental crypto in the eSessions protocol, from a purely academic standpoint. The pomposity of "I haven't heard of it and it's only mentioned in the only published book on XMPP so it can't be important" is just plain foolish, I'm sorry to say. 217.155.137.60 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This software is well known to a bunch of geeks. That does not make it encyclopedic. Let's see significant coverage from reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Ehm, I guess that after all, magnetohydrodynamics or alpha-synuclein are known only to a "bunch of geeks": only happens that such geeks use academic articles to communicate, while the free software community doesn't. RS problem notwithstanding, treating software users with such contempt is not exactly civil and, if anything, puts your arguments in a bad WP:IDONTLIKEIT light. --Cyclopiatalk 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I include myself in the geek group, it isn't incivil. Miami33139 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, ok. The comment gave another impression. --Cyclopiatalk 19:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh, heavens above. Yes, this software is well known to experts in the field. I can claim to be such an expert. According to your own criteria, then, this software is notable. Dave Cridland, XSF Member and XMPP Council Member. 217.155.137.60 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, as one of main XMPP clients. There is also a Linux.com review for example. Unfortunately free software has avenues for discussion that are not always "official", and as such one has to be extra careful and apply some common sense, before declaring that such a software is not notable. --Cyclopiatalk 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • For the actual size of its userbase free software has plenty of available sources. Wikipedia has a systemic bias in software and needs to be held to the same standards as other articles. We do not need to weaken our standards to protect the bias. Wikipedia is not a software directory. What is significant and important about this chat software that makes it more prominent than average chat software that makes it an encyclopedic topic? Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
      • "A systemic bias in software"? Could you elaborate on that? It is new to me. --Cyclopiatalk 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It is widely spread free software. Hubbitus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Hubbitus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep There are users all over the world, development is very active. asterix_86 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— asterix_86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note to closing admin. Some of the SPAs that !vote here also showed up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination). A check-user seems in order. Pcap ping 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has fairly long reviews in Linux.com [2], and Softpedia [3]. Mentioned in this XMPP book. It's reasonably notable for this kind of software I'd say. Pcap ping 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Softpedia.com is not a notability reference. They have indiscriminate criteria on what they will review (everything). Miami33139 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you have a basis for such an assertion? --Cybercobra (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
        • They will publish anything submitted to them if it passes an anti-virus test, including short and long descriptions submitted by the developer. Their stated goal is to publish everything and to review as much as possible. That is an impossible standard of judgment at odds with Wikipedia's criteria. I don't usually have a huge problem with Softpedia being used as an RS about facts, but their reviews are meaningless to assert notability. Reviews are the primary content that drives their revenue. They have no interest in not reviewing anything submitted. Miami33139 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on Softpedia review. We had a similar discussion in the past about linux.com; that was before the site changed ownership. It had a "reviews" part of the web site where there was editorial oversight, and a "news" part in which there wasn't; well, not as much, it wasn't a wiki. But it was easy to tell the two apart. (See also Bruce Byfield's post-non-disclosure agreement take on it). Now, as far as Softpedia goes, the same is true. The have an editorial team which nowadays employs two editors for Linux matters. Take one of them for instance. He write both reviews, e.g. [4], which are cleary identified as such in the title, format (see stars at the end), and URL, but he also just "sings off" (I guess) on news e.g. [5], which again have a different URL and format: only the 1st paragraph appears written by the Softpedia editor, and he attributes the news piece to whoever let it out, in that case "Robert Shingledecker, founder of the Tiny Core Linux project, ..." So there's a clear enough distinction between the two sections of Softpedia, just like linux.com had. Now one can argue that these guys are from Romania etc., and that their reviews aren't a of such high-quality, but you can't say their review section is indiscriminate or user-submitted. The gajim Softpedia piece I linked above is a review, not a news release. Pcap ping 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
What is indiscriminate is their criteria for what they review. They will review anything and everything. The issue isn't about whether they are an RS about facts but whether the presence of a review is evidence of notability. Notability wants non-routine coverage. Softpedia reviews are routine because they are indiscriminate. All software eventually will have a softpedia review. Miami33139 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not my impression. They've have some 23 "Linux software reviews" for the entire 2009 [6], most of these are well-know products, major distros etc. So, one review every two weeks or so. Given that they have two paid Linux editors, it doesn't seem like a review mill. If anything, they have an editorial bias for desktop Linux products, but I'm not sure that's impeachable. Pcap ping 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
And no QutIM review :P Pcap ping 19:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Linux.com review. Honeyman (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - one review does not make significant third party reliable sources. The software needs more to be notable. 16x9 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It has a second review - the Softpedia one. See above. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Make that three, if you count the quick take on Tom's Hardware [7]. Pcap ping 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If I understand it correctly, the Linux.com review and content is user generated and lacks peer review/fact checking [8] making it a non-reliable source. The Tom's Hardware link is a meager two sentences, not really meeting any stretch of the definition of "non-trivial coverage". I am not familiar with the reliability of Softpedia.com. Is their content user generated as well? JBsupreme (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, I just looked at the Softpedia link, it is a directory listing, not a critical review by any means. Upon full review of the links provided thus far, I continue to endorse my original delete !vote at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No, the softpedia one is an actual editorial review; it's just on the same page as the directory info. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I think there was some confusion about that, because the link in the article was different from the link on this page [9]. I fixed the article. Pcap ping 08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
        • JB, Except for the length of coverage in Tom's Hardware, you're wrong on all counts. Tom's is a round-up of similar products, but it's the most recent take on gajim, that's why I added it to lead instead of the 2005-2006 longer reviews, which do cover it more depth. Maybe you want to read about cognitive dissonance, especially since you've been removing info from the linux.com article that contradicts your view of how it worked before it changed ownership, which is when that review was written. Pcap ping 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a part of Debian( http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=Gajim&searchon=names&suite=all&section=all&sourceid=mozilla-search ), fedora ( https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gajim?_csrf_token=b535ae6e4e03863504880922c5ff869ec00697be ) and maybe other linux( or even some *nix like) distributions. So this software is officially supported and passes distros QA. This should be considered as a reliable proof, that software is notable, and a sign that author could be trusted. Also there are descriptions made by distros maintainers, yes they are rather trivial and intended for a large non-technician audience, but it is a reliable source of general information about software. Furthermore, open source contains 100% reliable description within itself, and large technical descriptions by third side are not needed, because every authors claim about their software can be verified directly. So the claim, that there is no non-trivial information is ether a lie, or the author of that claim is not enough qualified to make judgments about software. Again, there is a reliable source of general information for end users, and the reliable source of specific information for developer is provided by open source code. The later is true, because it was enough for distribution maintainers to make software a part of distribution. 81.94.20.122 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Being in a repository for a Linux distro does not make notability. Source code availability does not satisfy verifiability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
      • This software is not just in distro. Open source is notable and IM is notable. Gajim is one of the most popular open source IM clients. Now read again my previous post. How is that one of the most popular software for a notable IM in several notable distros( read operation systems) is not notable? As for "source verifiability", it was enough for maintainers. And professionals opinion is much more "notable" than yours( no offense), and your favorite journalists from magazines. Because debian and fedora alone is more "notable" than any magazine. And being in distro is not just files on disks, it is more about infrastructure, which is also a source of reliable information. And the last, from previous considerations, if software is included in several notable distros and is for some "notable" and non-trivial purpose, it becomes automatically notable. 81.94.16.117 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously, since it's one of the most famous and respected software for open standard chat overt the internet. Nyco (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If it is obvious, the sources would be too. Miami33139 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, the point is that open source stuff, unfortunately, does not follow the same official publishing avenus of other subjects. Software can be highly notable, in the "common sense" meaning of being something used and known by a huge amount of people, yet being not sourced from dead tree magazines as one could expect. We should apply some judgement on the basis of these facts. --Cyclopiatalk 22:28, 23 December 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Articles_for_deletion/Gajim&oldid=2794954"