Talk:XMule

Untitled
The second link in trivia section isn't working (.sourceforge.net link)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on XMule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120220045813/http://xmule.ws/node/59 to http://xmule.ws/node/59
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060721015541/http://www.amule.org:80/wiki/index.php/XMule to http://www.amule.org/wiki/index.php/XMule
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061008054011/http://www.xmule.ws/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2 to http://www.xmule.ws/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion and reason to keep
The article was deleted via WP:PROD but was then undeleted. The reason to keep this article:

I strongly believe despite the fact this article was poorly sourced, the subject xMule itself is notable and meet WP:NSOFT:
 * There's even a published book xMule: File Sharing, Peer-to-Peer, eDonkey Network, BitTorrent (Protocol)
 * Several other published books mentioned xMule:, ,
 * There was a known case, RIAA/MPAA vs. xMule Author, with third-party coverage back then (uncontroversial Slashdot posts are reliable sources)
 * Back then xMule (X11 Mule) made eDonkey truly cross-platform and work in all the major Unix systems. aMule (probably the second most popular eDonkey software after eMule) is a fork of xMule, so xMule has its historical and technical significance in P2P/eDonkey software history
 * xMule's article has 7 other language versions
 * It was a WP:PROD (uncontroversial deletion), but obviously, it's controversial (perhaps please don't file WP:PROD for articles with many other language versions next time except for very rare cases) —Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

--Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for re-vitalizing this page and volunteering to improve it. Unfortunatelly, it still relies too much on non-reliable or non-independent sources, so it requires a lot of work to meet Wikipedia standards. I'm still not entirely convinced xMule is notable. Consider this:
 * xMule: File Sharing, Peer-to-Peer, eDonkey Network, BitTorrent (Protocol) clearly states:
 * Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.
 * This is a clasic case of party A writing content on Wikipedia, party B reprinting Wikipedia content, and then party C citing B to support claims put forth by A. Should I elaborate why this is problematic?
 * On first glance, I can not determine whether coverage in these sources is sufficiently in-depth because the sources have such a broad focus. Do these sources support any content already in the article? Do they convey information which could be added to the article?
 * This can be used as one source to hinge notability on.
 * Given how similar these clients are and, would it make sense to merge all the articles into one? That could help avoid duplication and help with notability and verifiability.
 * These 7 articles appear to be just machine translations of English article at different times. They are not supported either. Also, WP:OTHER is not a valid argument, every subject must meet notability requirements separately to qualify for a dedicated article.
 * This article won't be PRODed again, since it was PRODed once before.
 * Anton.bersh (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * But that's still a published book, likely vetted. It's just that when we use it as a source, we should make sure that the part we quote as the source is not from Wikipedia and other user generated site. It's not that the whole book, or every sentence of it, is unreliable. And it still can serve as one of the reasons the subject is notable enough to have an article (WP:NSOFT).
 * Because of the potential circular reference problem, I've just removed xMule: File Sharing ... as a cited source, that sentence is no longer supported by this source but by other sources. But the book is still listed in the "Publications" and supports the subject's notability.
 * In fact I was aware of the potential circular reference problem. That's why I ultimately didn't include "Ted R. Smith was sued by MPAA" in the article - after carefully reviewing the two reliable sources (the Slashdot post & the Numerama article), the archive of the original article written by Ted R. Smith, and xMule article's history, I couldn't find Smith's claim or any independent claim, other than an unsource claim in the old version of "xMule" article, and xMule: File Sharing ...'s summary which may be a circular reference, to prove the involvement of MPAA. So you see, I've been very careful actually.
 * Counter-arguments for OTHER: OTHER. Btw, I think what you really wanted to cite is WP:OTHERLANGS. I'm well aware of WP:OTHERLANGS, which states: "the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable". I didn't, and would never, bring "7 other language versions exist" as a sole reason to keep an article.
 * Also, from what I can see, Wikipedia editors are generally less harsh to non-commercial open-source projects than to commercial, closed-source ones, presumably because ① it's not very likely the article is created as a (commercial) promotion, money is not likely involved here (see WP:Advertising and other pages); ② noncommercial open-source projects do not have marketing campaigns and may attract less attention of the mainstream media outlets, but their code sources may have many forks and be used by many (while it's impossible to fork and spread closed-source software's sources), it sounds a little unfair to judge open-source projects' notability solely by the number of mainstream sources. But, you know, this is just one of the arguments, it alone is not a valid reason. Just like "it has 7 other language versions", I mentioned it, not because I think "non-commercial open-source" alone is a valid reason to keep the article, but it's something worth taking into account.
 * I think the current version of xMule has enough reliable sources and other reasons to be kept. I can see complain on your talk page, and Mashup (web application hybrid) that you nominated (Articles for deletion/Mashup (web application hybrid)) but apparently with many reliable sources, it might need some cleanup but should never be deleted. I don't know but, perhaps re-evaluate the sources that you deemed unreliable, many of them may be actually good.
 * You mentioned a potential merger, yeah, for me it would be OK if lMule is merged into xMule (Talk:LMule), but I don't think both of them should be deleted (or merged into another article). I also agree that, for the eDonkey software articles that was deemed non-notable during their AfDs (and those that would be in the future), after the deletion, they still can be redirected to (merged into) a section in Comparison of eDonkey software (and it could be renamed to "eDonkey software" or "list of eDonkey software" if we convert it to a normal article or a list in the future). See: Talk:Comparison of eDonkey software --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)