Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profanity (instant messaging client)

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity (instant messaging client) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent significant coverage. Current refs are incidental mentions. A search turned up download sites, forum posts, and developer's pages but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the developer as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now in any case as my searches simply found nothing better to even suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added references to official linux distributions where this software is included, do these count as notable references? How does this differ to the WeeChat page for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read through Wikipedia:Notability. The distribution listings are acceptable as references, but still don't meet the threshold of significant coverage in my opinion, which in practice usually means one or more entire articles in reliable independent publications, or several paragraphs in a book by a commercial publisher.Dialectric (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added further references, the book "Raspberry Pi for Secret Agents" Chapter 4 is about using OTR in Profanity which can be read in the preview. Profanity can be also be seen listed on the Linux Format issue 164 link. It was also listed in the Top 100 Linux Apps in issue 196, however since the content for this issue is only available to Linux Format subscribers I'm not sure this can be verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book section is legitimate and so is the Linux Format magazine coverage. Both demonstrate sufficient notability and coverage. Sbwoodside (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To remain, there would need to be articles ABOUT the software. Lists of distros shouldn't be included as references, but could be listed as External links. LaMona (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book reference and magazine links are both about the software in question, in particular they mention some of the features in this page. The distribution references are there to back up the claims that the software is included in those distributions. Using the same example as previously WeeChat has similar distribution references, does this mean the Weechat page is also needs to be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any WP entry, wp:primary sources are discouraged unless needed to verify a particular bit of information not available elsewhere, such as using a person's own web page to verify their date and place of birth. In this case, the primary sources aren't adding to the content of the article - no one seems to be questioning that the software exists. But in no case do primary sources support notability. So if the previous version of the article, without these sources, didn't meet notability then this version, with primary sources, is no further along on that score. Since the XMPP source is just a list of software, it can't be considered to be ABOUT this software. The book listed here includes some "how to use..." instructions, again not a strong source. Basically all that you are able to show is that the software exists and there are instructions on how to use it. wp:gng requires more than that. LaMona (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the Linux Format references cannot be considered notable (they are from an established publisher, but are fairly short articles), then I understand the reason for deletion according to the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.162.60 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Considering that There is now 3 sources that pass the WP:GNG (I would argue all 5 points when looked at together). As to the strength of the sources they seem to be fairly strong as they are not mentions of the software but descriptions of it's functionality and state and usage (which to be honest is all that is really worth talking about when it comes to software). Andrdema (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.