478:
for my nomination of this article. I would not have taken it here had the article been fixed, or the prod template been kept. I don't feel we've come up with new reasons either, since my argument to delete has been the same all the time, and that is because the article lacks good sources. I agree with
Schmidt that the lwn.net article alone wont establish notability, but that is ultimately up to the community to decide. --
336:
to further explain what is being debated here. No one is contesting the programs usefulnes, user base, volunteers, or support quality. What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in
Knowledge (XXG) needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources. You (or anyone for that matter)
313:
Not only is it easy to use, but it has a very low usage of data which allows for communication to be made with others when a computer is not accessible. Text messaging may be cheap in the US, but that is not so in Europe. In fact, in many
European countries data is much cheaper than text messaging.
453:
No, I did not recant, as I still feel the article reads as an advert. Assuming good faith that you did not intend it to be an advert, I struck that from my post. However, you have not addressed the matter of notability. Yes, you have found an outside article independent of the source... but all that
231:
Mr. Schmidt, would you please provide specific quotation as to why this article is an advertisement (I don't see anywhere stating that the software is 'amazing' or even as benign as 'useful')? The software is released under the BSD license, which is an open-source, open-copyright, and non-copyleft
146:
As I stated on the
Knowledge (XXG) FeatherChat discussion page, FeatherChat is a not-for-profit open-source application, so I am certainly not posting here for financial gain. Furthermore, FeatherChat is notable enough to have attracted multiple volunteers to assist the development within 24 hours
477:
The reason I took this article to AfD is because my initial prod was denied, but the issue was not addressed. Contributing to XFDs doesn't mean just deleting articles, I could just as well be voting keep for articles I think should be included. The suggestion in my review however is not the reason
161:
Update: Furthermore, the wiki page has since been rewritten in full by a
FeatherChat user. I contacted this user and asked them to review the page, and re-write it from scratch as my ability to be subjective was called into question. I think the fact that there are also users who are willing to
424:
I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but I feel I must voice an opinion here, and this has gone on long enough. On several occasions throughout this debate, those supporting the deletion have made arguments which I have successfully counterpointed (Schmidt claimed I was advertising, and later
433:
essentially advising him that if he wants to advance his
Knowledge (XXG) career, he should pursue deleting articles. I'd hate to think that Knowledge (XXG)'s users (or at least the ones involved in this argument) are using my article, and others, as mere stepping stones for their personal
425:
recounted this; Twinzor says that I must provide an external link, I do so and
Schmidt calls it invalid), and yet those who are pro-deletion continue to come up with new reasons or simply deny the validity of my proof. I happened to notice that on Twinzor's wikipedia profile (
337:
can do that by citing appropriate sources where this program is mentioned. You should find all the information on what qualifies as a source in the
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines linked above. If you have any questions on the subject I will gladly answer them on
454:
source does is verify that that
FeatherChat exists. We accept that. But for inclusion on Wiki, a subject must be notable and have THAT verified by a Reliable Source. If you can establish that, I will happily reverse my position. With respects,
258:
found lots about
FeatherChat... and I am not denying it exists... but I was unable to find anything that gives this piece of software, BSD or no, any special claim to notability. So I will happily change my reason above accordingly.
392:
I'm having trouble understanding your logic. First, Twinzor says "What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in Knowledge (XXG) needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources." So I provide such a source
123:
500:
373:
The source shows it exists. That is not in contention. That it may be free or easy to use is not in debate either. Your source does not show any special notability.
397:). Now you're telling me that the source doesn't qualify that. Please get your arguments together, it's pretty hard for me to hit a moving target.
182:
280:
I am a user of FeatherChat. I was contacted by the creator and asked to update wikipedia to reflect a non-bias opinion of the program.
484:
426:
347:
191:
136:
17:
90:
85:
130:
The article is about a software product without any claim to notability, and the sole contributor is the software developer.
94:
77:
552:
36:
463:
382:
303:
268:
219:
551:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
534:
510:
531:
507:
319:
285:
537:
513:
488:
468:
443:
406:
387:
368:
351:
323:
308:
289:
273:
241:
224:
195:
171:
156:
140:
59:
81:
456:
375:
296:
261:
212:
333:
255:
315:
281:
356:
Would this qualify as a "reliable, unrelated source"? From the 2nd Google hit for "featherchat":
247:
206:
73:
65:
232:
license. If I were attempting to profit from the software I'd be going about it very poorly :)
439:
402:
364:
338:
237:
167:
152:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
329:
527:
55:
523:
162:
dedicate their time to the wiki page also comments to the notability of the project.
254:". However, the nom is correct as no notablility has been asserted or shown. My own
479:
435:
398:
360:
342:
233:
186:
163:
148:
131:
111:
50:
251:
394:
357:
294:
And what's the notability? That it's free? That it's easy to use?
431:"If you want to become an admin...try contributing to some XFDs,"
545:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
314:
This program allows for communications at a much lower cost.
118:
107:
103:
99:
147:
of a "help wanted" news post, on multiple occasions.
181:I also suggest that if this AfD closes as delete,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
555:). No further edits should be made to this page.
501:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
185:be deleted as well, for the same reasons. --
499:: This debate has been included in the
427:Knowledge (XXG):Editor_review/Twinzor
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
203:article and template as non-notable
24:
429:) someone suggested to him that
395:http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/
358:http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/
1:
528:reliable, third-party sources
538:21:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
514:21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
489:00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
469:05:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
444:23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
407:23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
388:23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
369:22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
352:22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
324:21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
309:21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
290:21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
274:21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
242:20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
225:18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
196:18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
172:20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
157:20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
141:18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
60:08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
572:
522:. Article does not assert
252:masquerading as an article
328:I must ask that you read
548:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
246:I feel it qualifies as
485:Do I suck or rock?
348:Do I suck or rock?
192:Do I suck or rock?
137:Do I suck or rock?
44:The result was
516:
504:
487:
350:
194:
139:
563:
550:
505:
495:
483:
459:
378:
346:
299:
264:
215:
190:
135:
121:
115:
97:
34:
571:
570:
566:
565:
564:
562:
561:
560:
559:
553:deletion review
546:
457:
376:
297:
262:
213:
117:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
569:
567:
558:
557:
541:
540:
517:
492:
491:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
278:
277:
276:
228:
227:
198:
175:
174:
159:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
568:
556:
554:
549:
543:
542:
539:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
502:
498:
494:
493:
490:
486:
481:
476:
470:
467:
466:
465:
461:
460:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
386:
385:
384:
380:
379:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
344:
340:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
312:
311:
310:
307:
306:
305:
301:
300:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
270:
266:
265:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
226:
223:
222:
221:
217:
216:
209:
208:
202:
199:
197:
193:
188:
184:
183:this template
180:
177:
176:
173:
169:
165:
160:
158:
154:
150:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
133:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
547:
544:
519:
496:
464:
462:
455:
434:advancement.
430:
423:
383:
381:
374:
339:my talk page
304:
302:
295:
269:
267:
260:
220:
218:
211:
204:
200:
178:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
74:FeatherChat
66:FeatherChat
524:notability
334:WP:SOURCES
248:WP:Advert
207:WP:Advert
458:Schmidt,
377:Schmidt,
316:Beav1526
298:Schmidt,
282:Beav1526
263:Schmidt,
214:Schmidt,
124:View log
480:Twinzor
436:Weaseal
399:Weaseal
361:Weaseal
343:Twinzor
330:WP:NOTE
250:under "
234:Weaseal
187:Twinzor
164:Weaseal
149:Weaseal
132:Twinzor
91:protect
86:history
526:using
520:Delete
256:search
201:Delete
119:delete
95:delete
46:delete
179:Note:
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
497:Note
440:talk
403:talk
365:talk
341:. --
332:and
320:talk
286:talk
238:talk
205:per
168:talk
153:talk
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
506:--
503:.
532:VG
530:.
508:VG
482:-
442:)
405:)
367:)
345:-
322:)
288:)
240:)
210:.
189:-
170:)
155:)
134:-
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
535:☎
511:☎
438:(
401:(
393:(
363:(
318:(
284:(
236:(
166:(
151:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.