Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejabberd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A vast majority of the "keep" votes rest upon exceedingly weak and irrelevant arguments, but given the lack of endorsements of the nomination, I can't reasonably justify deleting. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ejabberd[edit]

Ejabberd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable software product. The only provided references are extensive notes from the developer site about each minor version update. Wikipedia is not a software directory and all articles need to be notable as referenced by multiple and significant reference by independent sources. Miami33139 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's been writing code for 7 years, and it's the only free XMPP server written in Erlang listed on List of XMPP server software. 7 years of writing Erlang! My head hurts already. If you wipe out this work, you ruin that part of the free software portal, and you'd have to want to wipe out all of those other pages as well. Perhaps he writes better code in Erlang than he does Wikipedia articles, but your reaction should not be scorn and ridicule; it should be an effort to improve the article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : You are a strange person for remove all wikipedia articles ... before remove an article, learn the subject, it is not the first time that we are this problem ! — Neustradamus (✉) 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are not independent as required to demonstrate notability. Sources by the creator can be used, but only after the software has passed WP:WEB, WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can remove links which here since a long time ... but this server is known, you can look the number of page on Google, it is not a little software, but people who know only Microsoft is not good because you use only propriotary software like Windows Live Messenger ... — Neustradamus (✉) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are into specialist software territory here. But there are 11 Gbook [1] hits. It is quite subjective what exactly constitutes significant coverage (an unfortunate property of WP:N) but the mention is certainly more than passing mention. To me it's significant coverage. We can then add the about 70 hits from Gsholar [2] - at least indicative that this software has some footprint in some circles. I like the idea of using Wikipedia as the most comprehensive global reference works, nothing short of a repository of the knowledge of the world, and I believe this is how Wikipedia was originally conceived, before the WP:N tail began to wag the dog. It is therefore relevant to ask if a deletion of this factual article in any way could possibly improve the encyclopedia? Deletion can no doubt give personal satisfaction and peace of mind that some guidelines and the WP:Notability (software) essay are uncompromised and untarnished, but Wikipedia is not this kind of rigid cleric bureaucracy. It is possible to find remnants of the "repository of the knowledge of the world" view in the editing policy WP:EDIT, which says that we should attempt preserve information and consider merges (was this considered here btw) and even WP:N says that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. It's not the first resort. I believe the delete !votes are weak (if not myopic) as they only consider the present sources of the article, and did not attempt a broader search for sources, before opting for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are welcome to merge this content elsewhere, but the above speech is just a rail against the notability guide and not a defense of this article. Miami33139 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr Miami strikes again. Well, ejabberd is used by many less and more known hosts after the original jabberd software didn't scale, see Peter Saint-Andre's blog entry about that[3] related to Peter Millard "one of the Jabber/XMPP protocol's creators and designers" (!). If that doesn't count then I don't know what does. This is way over the line, justified only by blatant ignorance of the Jabber universe. Are we playing politics in here ? This "decision" doesn't bring many people happy. It's interesting, what purpose does it serve ? Following the guidelines in favour of deletionism ? The "inclusionist" word in your page is a joke, see the Wikimedia definition[4]. bjfs discuss 10:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of addressing me, you should spend time addressing sources for this article. Miami33139 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ejabberd is one of (if not the) most popular XMPP servers currently in deployment. If the article needs to be rewritten to include more sources that is one thing, but deleting the subject altogether seems unreasonable. To anyone knowledgeable about the XMPP community, the idea that the notability of ejabberd is in question is simply absurd. If Ejabberd is not notable enough for a wikipedia article, then I'm not sure what is. - Darco (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To anyone knowledeable about the XMPP community" We are supposed to source articles so people do not need specialist knowledge to understand it and judge it. You have not addressed the need to source this to reliable, third party sources. This subject is so extremely popular should be easy to source. Please provide them. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ejabberd server is probably the most prominent open-source project written in the Erlang (a major functional programming language) and is a major topic of presentations at Erlang conferences (in fact, two ejabberd developers have won the "Erlang User of the Year Award, Alexey Shchepin in 2006 and Mickaël Rémond in 2006 -- see http://your-bear.blogspot.com/2007/11/erlang-user-conference-2007.html for a list of awards). The ejabberd server is very widely deployed on the XMPP server network, and according to Facebook will power their upcoming XMPP-based chat service, see http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&story=110 for details. Deleting this article while keeping articles about lesser-known and lesser-used codebases like Djabberd and iChat Server is misguided. If anything, Wikipedia might consider merging the article into the article on Erlang (if the latter were updated to provide longer descriptions of various software projects instead of mere links). Given the importance of ejabberd on the XMPP network and in the Erlang developer community, the software appears to be quite notable. - Stpeter (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blogs aren't sources. If this truly important then sources should show it. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strange a lot of websites are based on blog so now we are not sources because a lot of websites are a blog. — Neustradamus (✉) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you want to delete ejabberd, than may be you should delete and "Windows" and "Visual C++" and many more other useless and stupid articles? 195.46.162.174 (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What? Ejabberd is active open-source community project. Just google it. Wikipedia now is the best way to quickly grasp the situation in any software area. Why break this success? Gkrellm —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC). — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Power.corrupts mentions, "We are into specialist software territory here." The odds that anyone without a professional interest in the sector served by this software of having heard of it are extremely slight; without sources independent of the trade, of broad interest and readership, this is not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That comment is an example of Hypocrisy, as attempts to enforce opinions, qualities, or standards that the emissor doesn't actually have. See some of his articles: Regifugium, Riu Riu Chiu], Ring of Gyges, only heard by professional interested, without sources independent of the trade, not broad interest or readership... not notable according to his own definition. For instance, last week his article Bless (Hip hop artist) was deleted because it was non-coverable and (supposedly) non-notable. Badlop (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell you what. If this software is still in use five hundred years from now, I'd cheerfully concede that it's a classic, something that belongs in the same category as Renaissance carols, Roman festivals, and myths mentioned by Plato. If you're going to personally attack people, at least get your facts straight. I did not create Bless (Hip hop artist); the page I actually created was a redirect from bless to blessing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blogs, facebook pages, and more blogs are not what we mean when we are asking for non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you suffered a common Cognitive distortion called Mental filtering: you focused exclusively on the blog-based sources used in the updated article, while ignoring the other sources that were not convenient for your pre-established vote. Or was it Confirmation bias?: you were initially inclined to delete the article, and reinforced that attitude by selectively reading only the blog-based sources. Anyway, you forgot to check publications that include frontpages (not personal blogs), articles, papers, books, and patents. And finally you beated your Straw man: as you had substitued the real article with a similar article that only had blog sources, then you refuted the blog-only imaginary article, creating the illusion of having refuted the real article. If you later have time to revisit the article, can you please take this into consideration to avoid those common mind traps? Thanks :) Badlop (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure what is a reliable source. ejabberd is mentionned in GigaOM by Om Malik. This is one of the major US tech source: http://gigaom.com/2009/11/05/facebook-xmpp-adium-chat/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.38.239 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page about List of XMPP server software more than enough (we can add more information to compare table).85.140.46.154 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutral since I'm working for ProcessOne, the makers of ejabberd. First let me say it is completely OK to have a strict policy about products notability. However, voters might want to consider that ejabberd is widely used by:

Nyco (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While there isn't a single in-depth article about this software in a mainstream source (the FSM post is not by a regular columnist), it has non-trivial mentions in books both on the language (Erlang), and the prootocol (XMPP). Further, the creator of this software got an/the award at an Erlang conference (they didn't seem to give any other awards besides "User of the Year", not even the usual "best paper"). Pcap ping 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notable deployments add quite a bit to notability, so switching to "full" keep. Pcap ping 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's unclear how long the tutorial in that french mag is, since they only have an abstract on the web; you need to buy the pdf magazine for the full version, but the preview indicates that the article on ejabberd is at least one pdf page. Pcap ping 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting the ejabberd article is on par with deleting the Apache, IIS, Sendmail or Postfix articles: it is a major server for an important Internet protocol User:The Barbarian (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— The Barbarian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • As originally reported by Miami33139 and Mgm, the initial article had only as references links to the project site. — To address this claim, the article has been expanded during the last seven days to provide references to different, multiple, significant, reliable, third party and independent sources that show notability including, but not limited to, research papers, books, patents and a list of notable deployments (all of them sourced and verifiable, of course). — I sincerely hope that the expanded article will satisfy Miami33139, as he pointed: "I want the articles to be on things that are actually important, not some project written in some guys basement, put on a download site, and blogged about. Adding sources is about meeting our minimum criteria, verifying the information to be true (or close to true), and maintaining quality. I am glad to see that some deletion attempts fail." Miami33139 quote. — Therefore, I kindly invite Miami33139 and Mgm to analyze all the new material, verify sources if they want, and update their considerations according to the expanded article. In case of some trouble, an extended deadline is mandatory to allow other visitors to continue improving the article until satisfaction is reached: it's worth mentioning that this article didn't get a 'notability' tag before being nominated for AfD, and according to a Miami33139 quote, "properly sourcing articles can take several hours". — PD: Oh, and I imagine now the article needs formatting and redaction improvements. Badlop (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What we fail to understand is that the world is increasingly an online world. An increasing number of things are going to be referenced through online sources only. And yes, if the software powers some of the largest sites in the world, as noted by User:Nyco above, then yes, it is notable. And if the article talks about something that general public doesn't understand, then so do all specialized articles (can you really say you fully understand Turkish_phonology, for example?). And now that the source list has been greatly expanded, including references to two books on the subject, I believe, the discussion can now be closed Dmitriid (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Alex.ryazantsev (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oof. It's always a shame to happen upon a talk page like this... After reading through the comments I think it is quite difficult to argue with the fact that Facebook and LiveJournal exclusively use ejabberd as their XMPP server. To me that places its level of notability not on par with, but certainly close to something like Apache. Miami, I've read over other articles you've proposed for deletion and I don't necessarily disagree with your methodologies and interpretation of WP:N. However, I believe you are simply not familiar enough with the problem domain to make a fair assessment on the notability of this article. 216.26.96.33 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ejabberd&oldid=1072759465"