Login
Login

:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/LinuxDC++

Comments on closing of AfD

  • Comment Let me see if I can summarize your summarization. All positive comments were ignored (democracy? who needs it?). Trivialized the guideline from WP:SOFTWARE that it in be in a major distribution like [http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/linuxdcpp0.691 Debian]. Your assumption that the "adoption" of a software (i.e. its user base) can be used as a measure is inaccurate since even WP:SOFTWARE#Controversial_criteria mentions that it is not a valid measurement. Completely ignored the fact that it is also in [http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net-p2p/linuxdcpp/ FreeBSD] (another major distro), [http://www.altlinux.com/index.php?module=sisyphus&package=linuxdcpp Alt Linux Sisyphus], [http://crux.nu/portdb/?a=search&q=linuxdcpp Crux], [http://www.archlinux.org/packages/11880/ Arch Linux] and it seems [http://ftp.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/pool/universe/l/linuxdcpp/ Ubuntu] (another one of them large distros), all of which are maintained by people other than the developers. Also ignored the fact that a google search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=linuxdcpp+OR+linuxdc%2B%2B&btnG=Search linuxdcpp] returns 35,000 hits and that it's been mentioned on [http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Communications/Filesharing/LinuxDCplusplus-16399.shtml Softopedia] and [http://freshmeat.net/projects/ldcpp/ FreshMeat], which while they probably don't qualify as "non-trivial published works", they are still noteworthy. And this all ignores the fact that WP:SOFTWARE itself is a proposed guideline. From WP:SOFTWARE: References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.32.208.230 (talk • contribs){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.
  • I think the primary issue you are missing here is a distinction between DC++ and the Linux version. The notability claims you make above don't infer any particular notability on this version. Think of a similar situation in which we had a separate article for every major platform that Java has been released on. All of the issues related to the Linux version can be, and should be, discussed in the DC++ article. —Doug Bell talk 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What about having a LinuxDC++ section in the DC++ article and having LinuxDC++ redirect to it, would that be alright? qwm 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be a good solution. —Doug Bell talk 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)