Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HexChat

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 delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HexChat[edit]

HexChat (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)

Not notable software. No GNews hits. GHits consists of blogs and forum hits. All refs are SPS or download sites. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assume with GNews hits you mean Google News, where it get 2 hits, the same as for instance XChat, which also has a Wikipedia page. Given that there were a number of deadlinks on other pages to an non existing HexChat page this fills a gap and was certainly in demand. The refs are primary sources, where better to get the information on an open source project than on the developer pages themselves. Wardinary (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Wardinary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact that WP:OSE is not relevant to to the discussion on whether this software is notable. You may also want to check out WP police on reliable sources - the use of primary sources should be extremely limited, and it is secondary sources that are used to establish notability. GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. I can't find any reliable sources for this. Insulam Simia (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So those advocating deletion would rather have deadlinks or links to external pages in the connecting articles than have this page on wikipedia? Or are you advocating that HexChat be removed from those pages as well, or even delete the pages themselves? Wardinary (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do thorough research before suggesting deletion. Linux distributors are already deprecating Xchat in favor of Hexchat (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=460038), because Xchat is not actively developed anymore (last release is from 28. August 2010) and has unresolved security issues (https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2011-5129). So you either remove both sites or none of them. -- Hasufell (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Hasufell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete with both XChat. This is not http://software.wikia.com The IRC protocol is notable. Not a random client that is popular for a short period of time in the free software community. Both software lack unique features and notability outside the Open Source sphere completely. Matthias M. (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are mailing lists posts for distributions regarding the change, plus posts showing that the software does, in fact, exist. With active development more visible since the move to GitHub, and being the most feature-complete GTK+ IRC-client available, I would certainly say notability is present. Even more-so if you assume XChat to have notability. --Nitrolinken (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Nitrolinken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - no one doubts that HexChat exists. My dog and cat exist too, but they aren't notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. You have to show that it is notable, which thus far hasn't been done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then you are ignoring the previous comments. Inclusion in big linux distributions (in the case of Gentoo it actually replaces Xchat) is a major indicator for the popularity of an application in the community. It's the most advanced fork. Again: do thorough research not just quick google-hits. 77.8.46.108 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— 77.8.46.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, I'm saying that nothing in those references meet Wikipedia standards for establishing notability. Self-published sources or sources that are not independent of the subject do not serve to establish notability. Neither do blogs, forums, chats, social media, or primary sources. Only when the subject is covered by reliable secondary sources which are verifiable and have written about the subject is notability established. You may want to look at the notability guideline for software - it covers what I have mentioned here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The key here seems to be verifiable notability, which I believe exists for HexChat, here are some examples:

So my question is, how much verifiable notability does there need to be? This seems to be a grey area where any arbitrary determination can be made. In the case of HexChat there is quite a lot of notability among Linux users and also in the open source GTK+ community for Linux and Windows and those who frequent IRC, as displayed by the links above. I think in this case we should not jump to a deletion simply because it is not mainstream enough for some. The comparison with XChat doesn't fall under the "other stuff exists" viewpoint, since HexChat is a continuation of XChat, not just something similar. The fact that HexChat is included in many Linux distros and that it is one of the few multi-platform clients that is active makes it notable also. Wardinary (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go through them one by one.
Softpedia is not a RS (see WP:RSN), any user can post reviews, a download site.
CNet is the publisher's description (self-published), not a RS, a download site.
Launchpad is not a RS, any user can post reviews.
Youtube is not a RS.
Wiki.znc is a wiki, user edited, not a RS.
Debian.org is user edited, not a RS.
Freenode.net is user edited, not a RS.
Ubuntugee.org is user edited, not a RS.
Gentoo.com is user edited, not a RS, download site.
Computerbase.de, like CNet, download portion of the website, user edited, not a RS.
XChat is not relevant. First WP:OSE covers this, and second, there are at least two RS listed as refs on the XChat article. I looked at nominating it for deletion also, but did not want to take the time to look for other RS. If I get time, I'll go back and do that. Whether it is included in Linux packages does not make it notable. Again, look at WP:NSOFT for notability requirements for software. GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time you reference WP:NSOFT in your argument, but even that essay clearly states "The way the software is distributed. It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.". It even goes as far in the references to refer to usenet posts as acceptable sources. Once again this is all a matter of degrees, when things only exist in the virtual world like with open source software projects, the criteria just aren't defined precisely enough to make a decision to just delete everything. Wardinary (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second time. It was referenced above - the blue "software" link. Besides, Wikipedia is not Google. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article on HexChat on Italian Linux Freedom, would this qualify as RS? It's a news site, not user generated. Wardinary (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no significant independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to XChat: successor to Xchat, coverage will gradually improve, as people and RS notice the transition. This deletion aggro is getting really old. We're not dealing with falsification, or misleading or unskilled in the subject area sources, so the dismissal of sources is too severe in the service of extremism, in my considered opinion. Merge with Xchat would be an acceptable alternative to deletion. --Lexein (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, probably the most notable successor to/fork of Xchat. I don't really agree with merging because it would imply writing about Hexchat on the Xchat article, which seems off topic and is liable to be removed by editors for that reason. CodeCat (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec !!!) Well, lots of open source and free software morphs over time. If one sw is a fork for maintenance and is not a major revamp, then its maintainers should be proud that it is part of the historical heritage of the original software, in my opinion. We build on the shoulders of those who have gone before, and we don't grind their ashes into the dirt under bootheel. Yes, sometimes there's bad blood between successive teams, but the sw, whatever name, shares too much commonality to be claimed to be unique by any definition, especially if independent reliable sources don't WP:N fully justify the separate article for the fork at the moment. Hence my sense that a merge is fair. I don't mean 'merge' as in 'swallow up and diminish', I mean join the articles as a historical succession. --Lexein (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @GregJackP "Gentoo.com is user edited, not a RS, download site." <- That is wrong information. That is the third time I have to tell you to do thorough research. "Gentoo.com" is not even related to the above posts and is not a "gentoo foundation" hosted website. Further, the linked sites are not really user edited (which include bug-tracker, developer mailing list and package definition database). They contain information on Gentoo developers decision to ship Hexchat instead of Xchat, because of various reasons already mentioned including popularity. So again: I won't argue with you if you remove both Hexchat and Xchat since I can understand that in a way. But only removing one is inconsistent and wrong. Hasufell (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't drag down two articles because one may temporarily fail notability. It's petulant and beneath us as editors. Also, who's "you"? For fuck's sake, indent or @Editor, so people know who you're talking about or to.. (sorry)--Lexein (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who said something about "temporarily"? Both pieces are "random software" as described by someone earlier. It's difficult to prove that there is a big difference in popularity these days. Historically, both pieces have to be mentioned together if someone asks about popular gtk+ IRC clients. You might also mind your language. Hasufell (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you may or may not know, I make a sporadic habit of sourcing the hell out of IRC articles. Sorry, deletionists, happy hunting somewhere else. Further, Xchat (not random at all, by the way) meets WP:N - I made sure of that. Hexchat cannot at this second meet formal WP:N. It will make its way into Linux-oriented mag and webmag reviews and books on Linux; it will meet N then. Until then, I think I'm right about merging, since it's verifiable, just not standalone-N yet. --Lexein (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So when are you going to add reliable sources? It hasn't been done yet - and I looked before I proposed deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So read my comments. I just said . . . oh just read what I already wrote. Just added two book sources for Xchat, which is still discussed in a few 2012 books, interestingly. All of this attention to Xchat will gradually shift to Hexchat, as Linux reviewers and authors catch up to the distros. Then Hexchat could move to its own article, though I will likely then still think it should stay merged. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, it is WP:TOOSOON for its own article. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it is so painfully close to N per RS, that it feels too soon to delete it(!), when book or journal sources could show up in a matter of days or weeks. IMHO it's either worth waiting for sources, or worth merging. This is plainly real, supported, and approved by the Linux distro community. I'm currently vetting some of the bloggy sources for author expertise & citations by others. It's taking some time. --Lexein (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, it might be at some point, but WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Also am I the only one noticing all the single purpose accounts voting to "Keep"? It might be nothing, but it comes across as odd. Caffeyw (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why you're against merging? --Lexein (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC), a non-SPA account[reply]
I would note that although I have made few edits, they have been across a much more wide timespan and topical area than you could classify as "single purpose account". In other words: very few edits, yes. Single purpose account: not at all. Nitrolinken (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have 13 edits. The initial ones in 2006 were to your own page. Two of them, a good while back were to the Norway bombing and ADC software. All of your recent edits are to this subject. It looks like a SPA to me, and all it does is flag it for the admin to look at. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop assuming bad faith. Stop needling editors. Your personal definition of WP:SPA goes against community consensus. NitroLinken seems to be advocating currently on a single issue, but that does not define a Single Purpose Account. People can have strong opinions, and jump in at times which are inconvenient to you. We don't swivel our turrets onto editors who may be acting in good faith. --Lexein (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, assuming bad faith? Where? The question of the SPA tags came up and I explained them and pointed out that the tag itself does not have a negative connotation but is a flag to allow the closing admin to properly evaluate the arguments. This use is completely in line with consensus and with prior ArbCom decisions [1]. I would say that you have more of a negative view on SPAs than I do, since you seem to believe that it is some form of attack, which is definitely not within consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Lexein - to answer your edit summary, no, I won't "STFU". I don't believe that the article is notable and have repeatedly stated that here. That's why I'm against merging. If there are absolutely no reliable sources to support it here, why would we add that information to another article? As for the other, I've explained it. Take a chill pill. It's a deletion discussion, not especially significant in the grand scheme of things. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't asking you, blah blah blah, don't care. --Lexein (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (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/HexChat&oldid=1071172818"