| Revision as of 16:56, 18 December 2009 editCyclopia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,081 edits →Gajim: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:59, 18 December 2009 edit undoMiami33139 (talk | contribs)6,175 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * '''keep''' : it is in official clients list : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml — ] (<big>]</big>) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | * '''keep''' : it is in official clients list : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml — ] (<big>]</big>) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **This is a fact which does not even attempt to demonstrate notability. ] (]) 17:59, 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 . 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. ] (]) 13:01, 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 . 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 15:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''', as one of main ] clients. There is also a 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. --]] 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', as one of main ] clients. There is also a 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. --]] 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| **For the actual size of its userbase free software has plenty of available sources. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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? ] (]) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:59, 18 December 2009
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 : it is in official clients list : http://xmpp.org/software/clients.shtml — Neustradamus (✉) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a fact which does not even attempt to demonstrate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:59, 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 . 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 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. --Cyclopia 16:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the actual size of its userbase free software has plenty of available sources. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)