469:: It has eight programs & is organized in a way categories cannot be (by both language and license) and is a good stub that can be expanded in both notable products and other points of comparison. I furthermore think the deletion discussion should be split, at least treating the server software separately from the libraries. I'd weakly !vote to delete the library list due to the few number of members that it has, but would not be opposed to re-creation assuming there were more notable libraries out there. --
561:
put it on my watchlist and spend my time scrubbing it? I don't want to care about it — and nor does anyone else — so why keep it around? Mind you, this isn't the only unloved list article. If I monitored all of them, I'd have no time left to eat, sleep or live. Reducing their number is the solution.
742:
Only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. No dispute. However there were numerous external links to open source projects so notable that they never reached a stable version and were abandoned years ago. For instance JabberCom last updated 2002. Or goodwarejabber, a single release
717:
But, back to the article: This is not a spam magnet. There were only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. I will keep it clean & nobody has indicated how it violates any policy or guideline. I reiterate my suggstion that the server list have a separate discussion so that
752:
And it does violate policy. Because all it is is an indiscriminate list. By all means list a few notable examples of XMPP libraries in the XMPP article, with links to reliable third-parties justifying the claim that they are notable. But just having a list of "these are all XMPP libraries" goes
672:
And it doesn't change the fact that content like this is much better served as a category, that
Knowledge was not intended to be a collection of indiscriminate lists, that no-one really has any interest in maintaining these types of articles (your singular self excluded
622:
Just to clarify. You are arguing keep because the article can be maintained in a non-spammy state. Even though you have no intention of touching the article yourself, and when there is clear evidence that no-one else has any interest in maintaining the article.
522:
is "delete stuff that nobody cares about". Given that nobody maintains this article, I think it's fair to say that nobody cares about it, making it subject to deletion. It's only when these articles are put up for deletion, that someone notices them. --
705:
When an AfD nom (unlike the way you skillfully handled these articles) and commenters have not done the minimal homework of checking for sources that could establish notability or cleaned up problems, it is easy to add to discussion by pointing this
654:
The list of server software is now on my watchlist. Note that all my replies, above, were to intgr & not to you. However, I assume that neither of you has objections to keep the list of server software, now that someone will keep it clean?
639:
And I wasn't nominating based on the worst that an "un-cleaned article can be", I was nominating based on the worst that the article actually was until I cleaned it and the worst the article will inevitably be again if it is kept.
193:. And a bunch of red links (which I just removed) pointing to articles that no-one has any interest in creating. The only articles that exist are one liners. And its been marked as needing expert assistance for a year and a half.
543:. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your watchlist & clean it up: the edit history shows that external links are added very slowly to it. You have offered no policy arguments for deletion. --
155:
743:
in 2007, never updated. Or jabber-net, a single release in July 2008, never updated. Spam spam spam. Whether it is commercial spam or open source spam, doesn't really matter. It is all non-notable.
308:
and because articles like this just invite spammers trying to advertise their products/projects (please note I've deleted the spam content, but everyone knows it will inevitably come back).
149:
539:
does not apply here: the article is not a directory! It is a software comparison stub that provides organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in
590:, for instance. But, in the absence of any valid reason to delete articles, we keep them. To argue for deletion based on the worst that an un-cleaned article can be is not
83:
78:
330:
325:
110:
87:
669:
Sorry but I still maintain my delete vote. Are you planning to maintain all the articles you vote keep on? You do tend to vote keep almost every single time on AFD.
442:
334:
70:
317:
115:
304:
I am also nominating the following related page because we gain nothing here that isn't done better by using categories (which already exist), because of
500:
Please tell me where our policies state that "spam targets" should be deleted. Actual spam, yes. But if something can be cleaned up, it should be. --
582:
that this article fits into. Asking for a specific policy that mandates inclusion of this list is like asking for one for mandatory inclusion of
374:
189:
A useless article. Just a long list of external links (which I've removed) which goes against the "not a list of indiscriminate links" part of
207:
I am also nominating the following related pages because NOTABILITY <= ZERO (and they have both been one liners for more than a year now):
170:
483:
No, it's just an invitation for spam. The article is clean now only because
AlistairMcMillan cleaned it up before proposing for deletion.
137:
275:
270:
279:
514:
You tell me where our policies give explicit approval to inclusion of list articles? In response to your request, I'll point out
262:
777:
727:
686:
664:
649:
632:
603:
570:
552:
531:
509:
495:
478:
457:
432:
394:
202:
131:
52:
17:
127:
74:
321:
177:
766:
And is your only argument for keeping it really "I'll watch it like a hawk to make sure it doesn't fill up with spam
773:
682:
645:
628:
370:
198:
66:
58:
702:
Our deletion guidelines discourage participation when you agree with the consensus or when you don't know anything
466:
313:
795:
229:
224:
36:
794:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
233:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
487:. Nobody bothers to maintain these list articles, so they always become spammy, unverifiable and useless. --
386:
all aforementioned articles; lists not useful and prone to spam, QXmpp and Smack not apparently notable. --
143:
536:
515:
266:
216:
769:
678:
641:
624:
366:
194:
362:
258:
163:
723:
694:
660:
599:
548:
505:
474:
220:
575:
540:
453:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
212:
567:
528:
492:
391:
691:
I don't see how my !voting record has any relevance here, but I can certainly defend it:
754:
719:
674:
656:
595:
591:
579:
544:
501:
470:
305:
190:
449:
351:
296:
250:
104:
699:
Reiterating previously made points or not giving a reason is therefore pointless
519:
563:
524:
488:
387:
49:
408:
712:
Yes, many articles that have been kept after a cleanup are on my watchlist.
586:
article. We do not have a policy that says we need to have an article on
587:
557:
You have offered no policy arguments for keeping. And why should
788:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
709:
I have !voted for deletion and made AfD nominations on occasion.
484:
347:
343:
339:
292:
288:
284:
246:
242:
238:
100:
96:
92:
162:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
798:). No further edits should be made to this page.
443:list of Software-related deletion discussions
176:
8:
485:This is what it looked like prior to the AfD
404:— Spammy, with mostly non-notable content.
677:), and that this remains a spam magnetic.
437:
441:: This debate has been included in the
718:consensus on this will be clearer. --
7:
24:
578:carves a specific exclusion in
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
67:List of XMPP library software
59:List of XMPP library software
467:List of XMPP server software
314:List of XMPP server software
815:
728:02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
687:23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
665:20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
650:20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
633:19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
604:18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
571:17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
553:17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
532:17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
510:16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
496:16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
479:15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
458:19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
433:00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
395:00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
203:23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
791:Please do not modify it.
778:03:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
53:05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
518:. Also the spirit of
675:assuming good faith
592:assuming good faith
44:The result was
569:
530:
494:
460:
446:
393:
379:
365:comment added by
806:
793:
770:AlistairMcMillan
679:AlistairMcMillan
642:AlistairMcMillan
625:AlistairMcMillan
566:
527:
491:
447:
431:
430:
428:
423:
418:
413:
390:
378:
367:AlistairMcMillan
359:
355:
337:
300:
282:
254:
236:
195:AlistairMcMillan
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
814:
813:
809:
808:
807:
805:
804:
803:
802:
796:deletion review
789:
537:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
516:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
424:
419:
414:
409:
407:
405:
360:
328:
312:
273:
259:Smack (library)
257:
227:
211:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
812:
810:
801:
800:
784:
783:
782:
781:
761:
760:
759:
758:
747:
746:
745:
744:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
715:
714:
713:
710:
707:
703:
700:
697:
670:
636:
635:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
461:
435:
398:
397:
357:
356:
302:
301:
255:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
811:
799:
797:
792:
786:
785:
780:
779:
775:
771:
765:
764:
763:
762:
756:
751:
750:
749:
748:
741:
740:
739:
738:
729:
725:
721:
716:
711:
708:
704:
701:
698:
696:
693:
692:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
676:
671:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
638:
637:
634:
630:
626:
621:
620:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
574:
573:
572:
568:
565:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
534:
533:
529:
526:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
493:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
444:
440:
436:
434:
429:
427:
422:
417:
412:
403:
400:
399:
396:
392:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
353:
349:
345:
341:
336:
332:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
307:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
235:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
205:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
790:
787:
767:
753:against the
583:
558:
463:
438:
425:
420:
415:
410:
401:
383:
358:
303:
206:
186:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
695:WP:NOTAVOTE
361:—Preceding
150:free images
576:WP:NOTLINK
541:WP:NOTLINK
450:• Gene93k
720:Karnesky
657:Karnesky
596:Karnesky
545:Karnesky
502:Karnesky
471:Karnesky
375:contribs
363:unsigned
111:View log
331:protect
326:history
276:protect
271:history
230:protect
225:history
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
755:WP:NOT
588:whales
580:WP:NOT
402:Delete
384:Delete
335:delete
306:WP:NOT
280:delete
234:delete
191:WP:NOT
187:Delete
128:Google
88:delete
50:Jayjg
46:delete
757:rule.
564:intgr
525:intgr
489:intgr
388:intgr
352:views
344:watch
340:links
297:views
289:watch
285:links
251:views
243:watch
239:links
213:QXmpp
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
48:all.
16:<
774:talk
724:talk
683:talk
661:talk
646:talk
629:talk
600:talk
594:! --
549:talk
520:WP:N
506:talk
475:talk
464:Keep
454:talk
439:Note
371:talk
348:logs
322:talk
318:edit
293:logs
267:talk
263:edit
247:logs
221:talk
217:edit
199:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
706:out
584:any
562:--
559:*I*
448:--
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
776:)
768:?
726:)
685:)
663:)
655:--
648:)
631:)
602:)
551:)
508:)
477:)
456:)
445:.
377:)
373:•
350:|
346:|
342:|
338:|
333:|
329:|
324:|
320:|
295:|
291:|
287:|
283:|
278:|
274:|
269:|
265:|
249:|
245:|
241:|
237:|
232:|
228:|
223:|
219:|
201:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
772:(
722:(
681:(
659:(
644:(
627:(
598:(
547:(
504:(
473:(
452:(
426:o
421:n
416:o
411:m
406:—
369:(
354:)
316:(
299:)
261:(
253:)
215:(
197:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.