Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinuxDC++

LinuxDC++

Fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Unrelased port of DC++. Memmke 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 837 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SunStar Net 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:SOFTWARE since it is included in Debian Unstable [1] --GargoyleMT 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually, WP:SOFTWARE specifically lists Debian as a bad indicator of notability ("some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution"). Xtifr _tälk 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Which is why WP:SOFTWARE (or at least that section of it) is not a viable measure of notability. You can't say "It's notable if it's in Debian (but not if it's in Debian)" and expect people to use that as a suitable guideline. Also, in case anyone hasn't looked at it, WP:SOFTWARE is currently marked as a "draft" so I don't think using it as a basis for deletion is sound yet. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GargoyleMT. qwm 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It doesn't break any rules Douglish 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's in Debian and FreeBSD. I wouldn't consider 837 hits (852 now, perhaps it's growing ;) to be small for an open source project. The lack of a physical release doesn't mean that it is unstable and rarely used. A release is planned by the end of the year, regardless. Stevensheehy 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen no compelling reason yet why it should be deleted. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most criticisms of WP:SOFTWARE that I've seen involve it being too inclusive (especially the free-software clause). Yet you seem to be using its still-tentative status as a justification for being even more inclusive. In the absence of more specific guidelines, the general guideline that prevails in AfDs is non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. If you're going to ignore WP:SOFTWARE (which, while somewhat controversial in parts, is usually well-received in AfD discussions), you should be providing more standard evidence of notability, not just saying, effectively, "keep 'cause I think it should be kept".
Merge to DC++, I see no reason why the Linux port needs its own separate article. I think any notability this product may have is independent of the platforms on which it may appear. Nor do I think the Linux port is different enough/unique enough to require a separate article. Xtifr _tälk 10:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GargoyleMT. Nysin 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GargoyleMT. --midkay 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~possible merge into DC++~~ DC++ already says "LinuxDC++: a GNU/Linux port of DC++ with a GTK+ GUI" which is about all that can usefully be said about this project. It's 1) unreleased as yet 2) merely a port, not an independent product. Also lacks the independent non-trivial sources demanded by WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although there are no packages available on the Download site, it is possible to download LinuxDC++ through CVS. Personally, I find "port" awkwardly put. Porting doesn't imply how much a software need to be changed to not be a port, but "half" (the GUI) of LinuxDC++ is written from scratch. Also, the porting article say "The term is not usually applied to the process of adapting software [...] [rewritten] to a different language (i.e., language conversion or translation)". LinuxDC++'s GUI is written with Gtk+, which is C, while the DC++ code (that LinuxDC++ uses) is C++. Ullner 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum according to the Debian Popularity Contest suggested by WP:SOFTWARE, just 19 people (out of 19,796 people who participated in the survey) have installed the "linuxdcpp" package. So it looks like this isn't notable even among debian users. Demiurge 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]