Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of XMPP client 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. Indiscriminate list. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP client software

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

Delete Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not meant to be used by people to advertise their products/projects. That is the sole purpose of this "article". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With some cleanup, this would provide a useful index to notable XMPP clients. Suggest that we remove all external links except the one to the XMPP site & then wikilink all clients. Red links can be allowed to stay on the list for a short time to encourage stubs, but can be purged if it is clear they are not notable. --Karnesky (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that we should keep the list because it is WP:USEFUL? Is that our purpose here, to provide a list of useful external links? I thought Wikipedia was not a web directory? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read both WP:USEFUL and my comments before wiki-lawyering!

"Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'"

This is precisely why I said this page can serve as an index. I also argued that the list article could be kept & the external links can be removed. --Karnesky (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External linkspam has been removed. I'd encourage you to be less liberal in deletion, when cleanup is relatively trivial (especially when you found this page on another talk page, to prevent any accusation of WP:POINT). --Karnesky (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Where is the informative part that helps people navigate the subject? All I see is NAME, SUPPORTED PLATFORM and SUPPORTED PROTOCOLS. None of it backed up by sources. Do you genuinely think anyone has put any effort into this article except to go "Hey cool, I'm gonna add my project to the list too." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another point I meant to mention in the nomination that I forgot. What does this article get us that isn't better provided by categories? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories are not meant to be mutually exclusive. The fact that the list informes us about platform and protocol makes it better than a category already. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might refer to other AfDs re. list articles. It has been said time-and-again that lists are not redundant to categories. This list is useful over categories for the same reasons that other software lists are, including:

It provides additional sub-categorization/clarification (in this case, license, platform, and other miscellaneous notes)
Some red-linked entries are notable products & this encourages the creation of stubs.

--Karnesky (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, indiscriminate list of non-notable titles. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No different from many other software list articles. It is clearly not indiscriminate, it seems to list only notable entries (all bluelinks), if some entries are not notable they can be removed and so, being an issue dealt with editing, we do not delete for this reason alone. The "advertisement" reasoning of the nom is unproven and smells of failing WP:AGF. Lists are meant to be useful, in structuring information for searching and easiness purpose. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement reason is unproven? Did you look at the edit history? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 1)please point me at where blatant advertisement pops out and 2)since when promotional edits are considered a reason to delete a whole article? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:IINFO applies. This list is unlikely to be completable on any level. Claritas § 11:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart that there is nothing indiscriminate about the list (it has a clearly defined topic with a clearly defined inclusion criteria), why do you think it is "unlikely to be completeable", and why do we need it to be completed right now? --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, would you mind please taking some time to understand what WP:OR and WP:MADEUP really mean, instead of citing them completely nonsensically in every AfD? Do XMPP clients look like a madeup topic? --Cyclopia ^talk 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In answer to Cyclopia, WP:GHITS has never been a valid rationale for inclusion. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research. That means that there should be some form of reliable, third party source that either provides a definition of the list in accordance with WP:Source list or comments upon such a list (i.e. an acknowledgement of its existence in the real world). There are no such sources cited in this list, hence my delete recomendation, since the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking of a number of GHITS, I am providing evidence that XMPP clients are not something madeup one day but are the subject of publications in the real world. The list itself needs to have been the subject of some form of external validation to demonstrate that it is not original research.: what "external validation"? Since when are WP articles peer reviewed outside WP? And would you mind explain where is the OR in this list? Citing policies is fine, citing them without knowing what they mean is not. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment XMPP clients surely exist in the real world, but it is this "list of XMPP clients" that does not: this is the stumbling block. Not only is there no other list like it from which a definition can be sourced, but there is no other source like it, period. When I refer to WP:NOT#OR, I am referring to the list itself, not its content. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about these lists, or the definitions they contain, once they have been published and become part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Being a list a navigational help, we build it, like we build navboxes, infoboxes or categories. It is not meant to be an article about a notable list, it is meant to be a navigational help for users to navigate other articles. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently, all external links seem to have been removed. This invalidates the nom rationale of "Indiscriminate list of external links." --Cyclopia ^talk 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It is important for people and XMPP is an open, standard, extensible protocol... — Neustradamus (✉) 11:12, 20 June 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.