Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of XMPP library software

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 all. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP library software

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

Delete A useless article. Just a long list of external links (which I've removed) which goes against the "not a list of indiscriminate links" part of WP:NOT. And a bunch of red links (which I just removed) pointing to articles that no-one has any interest in creating. The only articles that exist are one liners. And its been marked as needing expert assistance for a year and a half. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because NOTABILITY <= ZERO (and they have both been one liners for more than a year now):

I am also nominating the following related page because we gain nothing here that isn't done better by using categories (which already exist), because of WP:NOT and because articles like this just invite spammers trying to advertise their products/projects (please note I've deleted the spam content, but everyone knows it will inevitably come back).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

Delete all aforementioned articles; lists not useful and prone to spam, QXmpp and Smack not apparently notable. -- intgr [talk] 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Spammy, with mostly non-notable content. —mono 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of XMPP server software: It has eight programs & is organized in a way categories cannot be (by both language and license) and is a good stub that can be expanded in both notable products and other points of comparison. I furthermore think the deletion discussion should be split, at least treating the server software separately from the libraries. I'd weakly !vote to delete the library list due to the few number of members that it has, but would not be opposed to re-creation assuming there were more notable libraries out there. --Karnesky (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's just an invitation for spam. The article is clean now only because AlistairMcMillan cleaned it up before proposing for deletion. This is what it looked like prior to the AfD. Nobody bothers to maintain these list articles, so they always become spammy, unverifiable and useless. -- intgr [talk] 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please tell me where our policies state that "spam targets" should be deleted. Actual spam, yes. But if something can be cleaned up, it should be. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You tell me where our policies give explicit approval to inclusion of list articles? In response to your request, I'll point out WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also the spirit of WP:N is "delete stuff that nobody cares about". Given that nobody maintains this article, I think it's fair to say that nobody cares about it, making it subject to deletion. It's only when these articles are put up for deletion, that someone notices them. -- intgr [talk] 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here: the article is not a directory! It is a software comparison stub that provides organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in WP:NOTLINK. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your watchlist & clean it up: the edit history shows that external links are added very slowly to it. You have offered no policy arguments for deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You have offered no policy arguments for keeping. And why should *I* put it on my watchlist and spend my time scrubbing it? I don't want to care about it — and nor does anyone else — so why keep it around? Mind you, this isn't the only unloved list article. If I monitored all of them, I'd have no time left to eat, sleep or live. Reducing their number is the solution. -- intgr [talk] 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTLINK carves a specific exclusion in WP:NOT that this article fits into. Asking for a specific policy that mandates inclusion of this list is like asking for one for mandatory inclusion of any article. We do not have a policy that says we need to have an article on whales, for instance. But, in the absence of any valid reason to delete articles, we keep them. To argue for deletion based on the worst that an un-cleaned article can be is not assuming good faith! --Karnesky (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. You are arguing keep because the article can be maintained in a non-spammy state. Even though you have no intention of touching the article yourself, and when there is clear evidence that no-one else has any interest in maintaining the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I wasn't nominating based on the worst that an "un-cleaned article can be", I was nominating based on the worst that the article actually was until I cleaned it and the worst the article will inevitably be again if it is kept. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of server software is now on my watchlist. Note that all my replies, above, were to intgr & not to you. However, I assume that neither of you has objections to keep the list of server software, now that someone will keep it clean? --Karnesky (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still maintain my delete vote. Are you planning to maintain all the articles you vote keep on? You do tend to vote keep almost every single time on AFD.

And it doesn't change the fact that content like this is much better served as a category, that Wikipedia was not intended to be a collection of indiscriminate lists, that no-one really has any interest in maintaining these types of articles (your singular self excluded assuming good faith), and that this remains a spam magnetic. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my !voting record has any relevance here, but I can certainly defend it:

WP:NOTAVOTE
Reiterating previously made points or not giving a reason is therefore pointless
Our deletion guidelines discourage participation when you agree with the consensus or when you don't know anything
When an AfD nom (unlike the way you skillfully handled these articles) and commenters have not done the minimal homework of checking for sources that could establish notability or cleaned up problems, it is easy to add to discussion by pointing this out
I have !voted for deletion and made AfD nominations on occasion.
Yes, many articles that have been kept after a cleanup are on my watchlist.

But, back to the article: This is not a spam magnet. There were only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. I will keep it clean & nobody has indicated how it violates any policy or guideline. I reiterate my suggstion that the server list have a separate discussion so that consensus on this will be clearer. --Karnesky (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. No dispute. However there were numerous external links to open source projects so notable that they never reached a stable version and were abandoned years ago. For instance JabberCom last updated 2002. Or goodwarejabber, a single release in 2007, never updated. Or jabber-net, a single release in July 2008, never updated. Spam spam spam. Whether it is commercial spam or open source spam, doesn't really matter. It is all non-notable.

And it does violate policy. Because all it is is an indiscriminate list. By all means list a few notable examples of XMPP libraries in the XMPP article, with links to reliable third-parties justifying the claim that they are notable. But just having a list of "these are all XMPP libraries" goes against the WP:NOT rule.

And is your only argument for keeping it really "I'll watch it like a hawk to make sure it doesn't fill up with spam? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:43, 4 July 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.