- 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bozohttpd (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)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Another non-notable open-source freebie. Mattg82 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, as the original author of the piece I can easily agree on deletion of this article, seeing to be honored by having the piece in the same deletion list as the famous gajim.
- People want to use wikipedia for two purpose.
- Purpose One is to find a serious neutral content that he can base his opinion on, thus it has to be carefully authored and checked against facts, notability too, because existence of the article is an opinion that it is of some importance. When I check the page about cancer I am with this purpose.
- Purpose two is to find a quick and easy way to get the basic facts about a certain thing they heard from other channel, usually the official one. In case of commercial software, the official site do not tell you what the software is to majority of visitors, but tells the reason why you should purchase it (e.g. how different it is to have it than not to). In case of free software, the official site also fail to tell what the software is to majority of visitors, although many of them succeeded in telling what it is to a tiny group of developers similar to themselves, if anything was told. In both of the commercial and free software cases wikipedia article often serve a better 'entry to knowledge' than the original home page. With this purpose the articles are more like summary of the product manual, specification and usage, but more reliable because others who come across finding it wrong would correct them. You can call it "user's shared summarize of product's key information". When I check and write bozohttpd page I was with this purpose.
- There wildly exists a lot of small stubs of both insignificant commercial and insignificant free software products, they mainly serve the purpose two, hardly managed to fool people with purpose one into thinking they are significant. So I wouldn't think the two purpose have to conflict. It is easy to argue that Purpose two is the goal of software review site but not wikipedia, however the fact people try to find it on wikipedia making them serve a good practical use.
- I think it is okay to accept deletion of this article as well as other 100 stubs of not-very-widely used software, just because it served a useful purpose other than a website (wikipedia) team intend to. However it also means now I understand the purpose of wikipedia so well that I will walk away from wikipedia but to switch to other sites where my contribution is more welcome. Note this is not a criticize of wikipedia's principle. I believe most wikipedia appreciates my decision as it helps getting wikipedia high quality. I usually weights usefulness more than quality, which makes me fits other community better:) Wikipedia do not need me. I will, on the other hand, skill keep contributing to wikipedia in case of Purpose One, which happens about 5% of time when I try to contribute to wikipedia, and only in the key areas that I am proficient in, because that is the only moment I think I want to do something really good than just do something with intention "might be useful to others, why not?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 张韡武 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No secondary sources for this, except for that .name site. Pcap ping 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing in the way of substantial and reliable non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. My apologies to those who wish that Wikipedia was a directory of all software ever. It should not be that way. JBsupreme (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (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.