| Revision as of 19:13, 18 December 2009 editCyclopia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,081 edits →Gajim: "bunch of geeks" :/← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:19, 18 December 2009 edit undoMiami33139 (talk | contribs)6,175 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| **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) | **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) | ||
| ***Ehm, I guess that after all, ] or ] 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 ] and, if anything, puts your arguments in a bad ] light. --]] 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ***Ehm, I guess that after all, ] or ] 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 ] and, if anything, puts your arguments in a bad ] light. --]] 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ****I include myself in the geek group, it isn't incivil. ] (]) 19:19, 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> | ||
Revision as of 19:19, 18 December 2009
Gajim
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- 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)
- 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. --Cyclopia 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)
- 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. --Cyclopia 19:13, 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)
- "A systemic bias in software"? Could you elaborate on that? It is new to me. --Cyclopia 18:07, 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)
- Keep It is widely spread free software. Hubbitus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There are users all over the world, development is very active. asterix_86 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)