Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinuxDC++

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 delete. I spent some time trying to discern consensus on this one. Because of the number of keep comments that came from potentially single-purpose accounts with a vested interest in the project, the number of keep comments is not a good indication by itself. Next I looked at the notability requirements specified in WP:SOFTWARE. The only claim being made for notability here is inclusion in the Debian software distribution, but even there, the claim was weakened by the apparently poor adoption. There are also the issues that this is a port of the DC++ software and that there is no current release. When taken as a whole, the arguments in favor of keep don't meet the requirements of notability. The other option was to merge to DC++, but per the sparse nature of the article and the lack of a release version, there isn't much to add that isn't already mentioned in the DC++ article. If more needs to be said, please expand the discussion of this version in the DC++ article. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxDC++

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 Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia 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}}.

Fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Unrelased port of DC++. Memmke 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 837 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is known by several other names such as linuxdcpp, 32,500 non-wiki hits. bheekling 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SunStar Net 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:SOFTWARE since it is included in Debian Unstable [1] --GargoyleMT 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually, WP:SOFTWARE specifically lists Debian as a bad indicator of notability ("some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution"). Xtifr _tälk 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which is why WP:SOFTWARE (or at least that section of it) is not a viable measure of notability. You can't say "It's notable if it's in Debian (but not if it's in Debian)" and expect people to use that as a suitable guideline. Also, in case anyone hasn't looked at it, WP:SOFTWARE is currently marked as a "draft" so I don't think using it as a basis for deletion is sound yet. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GargoyleMT. qwm 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It doesn't break any rules Douglish 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — Douglish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep it's in Debian and FreeBSD. I wouldn't consider 837 hits (852 now, perhaps it's growing ;) to be small for an open source project. The lack of a physical release doesn't mean that it is unstable and rarely used. A release is planned by the end of the year, regardless. Stevensheehy 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — Stevensheehy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I've seen no compelling reason yet why it should be deleted. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most criticisms of WP:SOFTWARE that I've seen involve it being too inclusive (especially the free-software clause). Yet you seem to be using its still-tentative status as a justification for being even more inclusive. In the absence of more specific guidelines, the general guideline that prevails in AfDs is non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. If you're going to ignore WP:SOFTWARE (which, while somewhat controversial in parts, is usually well-received in AfD discussions), you should be providing more standard evidence of notability, not just saying, effectively, "keep 'cause I think it should be kept".
Merge to DC++, I see no reason why the Linux port needs its own separate article. I think any notability this product may have is independent of the platforms on which it may appear. Nor do I think the Linux port is different enough/unique enough to require a separate article. Xtifr _tälk 10:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GargoyleMT. Nysin 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GargoyleMT. --midkay 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~possible merge into DC++~~ DC++ already says "LinuxDC++: a GNU/Linux port of DC++ with a GTK+ GUI" which is about all that can usefully be said about this project. It's 1) unreleased as yet 2) merely a port, not an independent product. Also lacks the independent non-trivial sources demanded by WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although there are no packages available on the Download site, it is possible to download LinuxDC++ through CVS. Personally, I find "port" awkwardly put. Porting doesn't imply how much a software need to be changed to not be a port, but "half" (the GUI) of LinuxDC++ is written from scratch. Also, the porting article say "The term is not usually applied to the process of adapting software [...] [rewritten] to a different language (i.e., language conversion or translation)". LinuxDC++'s GUI is written with Gtk+, which is C, while the DC++ code (that LinuxDC++ uses) is C++. Ullner 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum according to the Debian Popularity Contest suggested by WP:SOFTWARE, just 19 people (out of 19,796 people who participated in the survey) have installed the "linuxdcpp" package. So it looks like this isn't notable even among debian users. Demiurge 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You forgot that it's being developed actively so people (including me) build it from source instead of using the package, and that the Debian popularity contest isn't particularly popular either. Pelzi 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is in FreeBSD too [2] which is a criterion as stated in WP:SOFTWARE. Also, it being one of the only two active Direct Connect clients for Linux (the other being Valknut), I see no reason to delete it. bheekling 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the possible sock puppet Douglish (seems to have registered the other day, no contributions to articles) and that Stevensheehy is the author of the program, WP:COI! Memmke 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LinuxDC++ is the only one working/upcoming DC++ client for LinuxOS. It's more than a port from Windows. Yes, you can call me a 'sock puppet' too, but googling may reveal some of my works for FOSS in Russia and some opensource projects. I expect Wikipedia to listen to the user and developers thoughts. Pavlov Konstantin, Thresh 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) — Thresh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I know more than 3 users personally. LinuxDC++ is gaining popularity rapidly, and it is really a DC++ based client instead of just being a port of DC++ - the GUI is completely rewritten. Pelzi 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) — Pelzi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Oh yes, I registered almost a year ago just to vote here... seriously, that's called misleading people. Pelzi 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In which way is it misleading to inform readers that you've made few or no edits outside this topic? Memmke 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure is more relevant than a lot of other stuff nobody's questioning out there. Knk003 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like pretty much all the LinuxDC++ users have expressed their opinions here! Seriously though, I see a lot of non-arguments ("I know 3 users", "It's gaining popularity", "It's more relevant than [other stuff that should be deleted]", "Doesn't break any rules") and WP:ILIKEIT mentality here, and quite a few possible sock puppets and/or single purpose accounts. Summary:

Knk003 - Created on/before 18 August 2005. 17 edits, most to his/her user page, has engaged in another AfD together with qwm, who is also present here.
Pelzi - Created 22 January 2006. 5 edits, of which 3 have been to this AfD.
Thresh - Created 24 November 2006. 2 edits, to this AfD and LinuxDC++.
Douglish - Created 21 November 2006. 4 edits, to this AfD and his/her user page.
Stevensheehy - Created 1 September 2006. 8 edits, all around this topic.

That leaves four delete, one merge and six keep. Memmke 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user midkay recommended keep on this AfD and the one on Stellarium at the same time, both also have qwm recommending keep. Memmke 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just pointing out that the result of that discussion was Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulveriser (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 November 2006
  - Comment Yes, but with general consensus and a lot stronger arguments than those presented here. What I wanted to point out by mentioning that midkay and qwm have expressed their recommendations on both these AfDs in a similar fashion (but in no other AfDs) is that they seem to be cooperating or be the same person. Memmke 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite merge to DC++, per Xtifr. What is mentioned here is simply a GNU/Linux variation of a Windows client with little details on differences, easily summed up in a section or line in the DC++ article. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
- Comment I think LinuxDC++ vs DC++ is akin to OpenArena vs Quake III Arena in several ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulveriser (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 November 2006
- Comment I think merging is not a very good idea because LinuxDC++ has a separate user base, very different code and most importantly different developers, releases and aims (it's not an exact replicate of the Windows version, and never will be). The other derivatives listed in the DC++ article are modifications of the original DC++ with the same GUI.Pelzi 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Direct Connect (file sharing)#Client software, which covers a broader range of topics on DC. I still believe that the client has questionable notability, and I'll stay the idea of merging until this software is notable enough (by certainly satisfying criteria in WP:SOFTWARE) to merit its own article. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Keep - WP:SOFTWARE states: "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer." - this software has been added to Debian Unstable, which is a major operating system (despite not being the "stable" version). function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 11:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that the article might need to be merged. But for now, a keep will suffice to me. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage

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.