188:. Okay, I know that you are probably not going to take the vote of an anonymous user into consideration, but when I saw that the article is proposed for deletion, I felt that I need to share my opinion: I often find these kinds of articles very useful, even if the mentioned piece of software is not very widely used (This is not the first deletion proposal that I regret to see). They can spare quite some googling, because many little pieces of information are collected on Knowledge (XXG), that are difficult to gather by searching the web. I looked up Jam on WP because I needed it to build some software on Windows, but I am not a professional programmer, so most of the time I need a little help with these kinds of things. The WP article told me immediately that there are many different versions of Jam and I could download a Windows binary of FP Jam within a minute. Now if the only thing that you know is that you need some software named "Jam" (I didn't even know that it's called
242:. The original Jam is abandoned and under-documented, Boost.Build (both versions) is very complex, under-documented but under active development. The current article is not much above mere collection of links. I do not vote because while Jam is not completely unknown it is unlikely to get useful coverage on WP (speaking from my experience here).
268:
00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Granted, the sources may be primary rather than secondary, but the prodder's argument that the sources are not independent because they are part of a narrow interested community (presumably computer programmers) doesn't hold water for me. Most computer programming tools
192:
Jam) and google for it, you only find the official perforce page, which doesn't help you much with getting it working. So this WP article saved me a lot of time. Of course I know that WP shouldn't be a collection of download links, but still: at least this page is useful, unlike many others that
151:
as original prodder. Furrykef, thanks for bringing it here and being open about the article. I have the impression that it is not a notable software tool, and the article, which is over two years old and has been tagged for notability for two months, has no external independent sources (per
205:
notable in some circles (among people who make their living by programming). Otherwise why would it be used in the build system of several projects? ... So if you don't think that this article is harmful in any way, please keep it ... -- a
Knowledge (XXG) user.
236:: Jam (and its variants) is one of several build tool trying to fix problems with make and being only moderate successful here (the area of make tools got fragmented and people often preferre to create custom ones). Short overview of Jams could be found at
288:
Can you give an example of a good independent secondary source about
Perforce Jam that establishes notability? I don't think I said that the sources are not independent because they are "part of a narrow interested community", but I think it fails
168:
As for the google hits, I'll note that it's often just called "Jam". Also, a descendant like "KJam" will likely be referred to by that name, without mention of
Perforce. Unfortunately, these names don't google very well... -
110:
121:. I'm moving it to AfD because I frankly don't know whether it should be stay or not. I think it might be a notable tool on the grounds that I
222:
17:
83:
78:
157:
87:
70:
312:
36:
156:) to indicate such notability. However, it may of course be that amongst the 143 distinct online sources (per Google
311:
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
218:
210:
125:
it, and its descendants, are used to build a suitable variety of projects (although not nearly as many as
297:
279:
246:
226:
214:
178:
163:
142:
52:
133:
because I think it's more likely that it's a notable program (just not with a well-sourced article). -
243:
174:
138:
276:
265:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
290:
255:
240:
237:
153:
129:), but I'm not sure how to best substantiate, or refute, that claim. But I'm going to vote
197:
proposed for deletion (just a random example that I stumbled upon by accident a day ago:
271:
260:
198:
170:
134:
66:
58:
104:
294:
160:
159:) or in some offline source, good, verifiable claims to notability are made.
118:
49:
305:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
126:
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
293:because there are no reliable secondary sources.
269:may not have extensive coverage in the press. ≈≈
315:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
193:contain less information and are
1:
332:
298:20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
280:00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
247:00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
227:19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
179:21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
164:21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
143:21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
53:02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
308:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
230:
213:comment added by
201:). And maybe Jam
323:
310:
229:
207:
108:
90:
34:
331:
330:
326:
325:
324:
322:
321:
320:
319:
313:deletion review
306:
244:Pavel Vozenilek
208:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
329:
327:
318:
317:
302:
301:
300:
283:
282:
249:
231:
183:
182:
181:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
328:
316:
314:
309:
303:
299:
296:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
273:
267:
263:
262:
257:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
238:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:129.177.46.38
212:
204:
200:
199:Simon Baldwin
196:
191:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
155:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
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:
307:
304:
270:
259:
251:
233:
209:— Preceding
202:
194:
189:
185:
148:
130:
122:
116:
67:Perforce Jam
59:Perforce Jam
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
117:Prodded by
175:Talk at me
139:Talk at me
272:Carolfrog
261:Carolfrog
254:. Passes
223:contribs
211:unsigned
190:Perforce
171:furrykef
135:furrykef
111:View log
234:Abstain
84:protect
79:history
291:WP:ATT
256:WP:ATT
239:&
154:WP:ATT
149:Delete
88:delete
277:♦тос♦
266:♦тос♦
258:. ≈≈
123:think
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
295:Fram
252:Keep
219:talk
186:Keep
161:Fram
131:Keep
127:make
119:Fram
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
50:Ezeu
195:not
109:– (
275:≈≈
264:≈≈
225:)
221:•
203:is
177:)
141:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
217:(
173:(
137:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.