Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XScreenSaver

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 keep. v/r - T P 14:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XScreenSaver

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

Non-notable software. Refs are all to the software's site, external links are to the same and to two download locations. A search turns up lots of places to download it and a few mentions but no substantial coverage. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is a core part of the open-source Unix platform and is also highly notable for being the main FOSS contribution of FOSS superstar programmer Jamie Zawinski, one of the core originators of Mozilla and Netscape. To consider this as not notable betrays a grave ignorance of modern Unix, of FOSS and of contemporary OS software in general. Liam Proven (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did the Google searches you link above and found tens of third-party news (mostly from ten or so year ago, but nevertheless) and printed book sections concerning the program - considerable evidence it was noteworthy enough to note. Possibly Google has helpfully customised our searches differently - you might want to try those searches logged out. This stuff does, of course, need to go in the article, and I'll compile a list, put it on talk and put it into the article as appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, this appears to be the third article I ever wrote on Wikipedia: [1] So I'll try hard to make this one worth keeping! - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—It's sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Covered by many Linux and UNIX books. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This article has existed on Wikipedia for over 7,5 years. Why wouldn't it suddenly be noteworthy anymore? The deletion request follows the recent expansion of the article. I can't judge whether that expansion is correct or not, but it doesn't seem to justify deleting the whole article. The article exists in other languages as well; the French article going back as far as 2006. Fruggo (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity is not a reason for keeping: it could be that it was created when standards were a lot more relaxed. It also means there's no argument that it should be given more time to improve. Other languages can and do have different standards. Notability means it has received coverage in reliable sources. There are none in the article, I did not find any and none have been mentioned or given in this discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne, your main argument is 'non-notable'. English isn't my first language, so we might have a misunderstanding here, but I interpret 'non-notable' as 'not important enough to have an article here'. I agree with you that longevity as such (and the existence of similar articles on other Wikipedia's) is not a reason for non-deletion as such; however it gives me reason to believe that others have found XScreenSaver to be important enough to be on Wikipedia. So, if others found XScreenSaver important enough, I'm curious why you find it not. Fruggo (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. the general notability guideline. Notability on Wikipedia means a topic is so much of interest outside of Wikipedia that it is discussed in detail ("significant coverage") by people who have nothing to do with it ("independent of subject") and who are of a high standing as sources ("reliable"). So e.g. the links to the official site in the article now are not independent. Whether editors like it is also not a reason to keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering and sophistry go well together. Eclecticology (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Freshmeat says "XScreenSaver is the standard screen saver collection shipped on most Linux and Unix systems running the X11 Window System. These screen savers also work on Mac OS." Well, they would say that wouldn't they, but XScreenSaver is a fundamental part of many (most?) users' Linux experience. I found the Freshmeat quote when I was looking for download statistics. I haven't found any, but it feels very strange to be defending an article about such a core feature. What's next? Keyboard? Tap water? --Northernhenge (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This book by Apress discusses matters arising from the development of the software. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical interest should not constantly be held hostage to deletionists' lack of judgement. Fixing something is more constructive than burying it. Eclecticology (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further: good to see support for the article's existence, but we do need refs in the article to make this abundantly clear. (I've been busy today learning how to handroll a deb. Owww.) Please to all getting editing :-) - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as a person who knows fuck-all about the subject, I'm not in a position to dig up references, but I can still see value to the article. AFAIK there is nothing controversial about the actual content. Are there other sources that claim it to be wrong or misleading? Notability should remain a very low barrier to inclusion; higher barriers would still be available for what is said about something. If there is no article at all nobody can improve it, and it cannot grow naturally. Eclecticology (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it needs references. It seems there's good support for the article but so far there's been nothing to support the argument that it's notable. The two links posted here, [2] and [3], have just two sentences (copied in full above) and a few quotes from XScreenSaver's developer respectively, i.e. not substantial coverage and not independent. If it is notable it should be easy to find references, with substantial coverage, independent of the product, and from reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:32, 15 October 2011 (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.