Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FeatherChat


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FeatherChat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a software product without any claim to notability, and the sole contributor is the software developer. Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the Wikipedia FeatherChat discussion page, FeatherChat is a not-for-profit open-source application, so I am certainly not posting here for financial gain. Furthermore, FeatherChat is notable enough to have attracted multiple volunteers to assist the development within 24 hours of a "help wanted" news post, on multiple occasions. Weaseal (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Furthermore, the wiki page has since been rewritten in full by a FeatherChat user. I contacted this user and asked them to review the page, and re-write it from scratch as my ability to be subjective was called into question.  I think the fact that there are also users who are willing to dedicate their time to the wiki page also comments to the notability of the project. Weaseal (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I also suggest that if this AfD closes as delete, this template be deleted as well, for the same reasons. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article and template as non-notable per WP:Advert .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Schmidt, would you please provide specific quotation as to why this article is an advertisement (I don't see anywhere stating that the software is 'amazing' or even as benign as 'useful')? The software is released under the BSD license, which is an open-source, open-copyright, and non-copyleft license.  If I were attempting to profit from the software I'd be going about it very poorly :) Weaseal (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel it qualifies as WP:Advert under "masquerading as an article". However, the nom is correct as no notablility has been asserted or shown. My own search found lots about FeatherChat... and I am not denying it exists... but I was unable to find anything that gives this piece of software, BSD or no, any special claim to notability. So I will happily change my reason above accordingly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a user of FeatherChat. I was contacted by the creator and asked to update wikipedia to reflect a non-bias opinion of the program.Beav1526 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's the notability? That it's free? That it's easy to use?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is it easy to use, but it has a very low usage of data which allows for communication to be made with others when a computer is not accessible. Text messaging may be cheap in the US, but that is not so in Europe. In fact, in many European countries data is much cheaper than text messaging.  This program allows for communications at a much lower cost.Beav1526 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must ask that you read WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCES to further explain what is being debated here. No one is contesting the programs usefulnes, user base, volunteers, or support quality. What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in Wikipedia needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources. You (or anyone for that matter) can do that by citing appropriate sources where this program is mentioned. You should find all the information on what qualifies as a source in the Wikipedia guidelines linked above. If you have any questions on the subject I will gladly answer them on my talk page. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would this qualify as a "reliable, unrelated source"? From the 2nd Google hit for "featherchat": http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/ Weaseal (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The source shows it exists. That is not in contention. That it may be free or easy to use is not in debate either. Your source does not show any special notability. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding your logic. First, Twinzor says "What is contested is this particular programs notability, which in Wikipedia needs to be shown with reliable, unrelated sources."  So I provide such a source (http://lwn.net/Articles/283947/).  Now you're telling me that the source doesn't qualify that.  Please get your arguments together, it's pretty hard for me to hit a moving target.Weaseal (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude but I feel I must voice an opinion here, and this has gone on long enough. On several occasions throughout this debate, those supporting the deletion have made arguments which I have successfully counterpointed (Schmidt claimed I was advertising, and later recounted this; Twinzor says that I must provide an external link, I do so and Schmidt calls it invalid), and yet those who are pro-deletion continue to come up with new reasons or simply deny the validity of my proof. I happened to notice that on Twinzor's wikipedia profile (Editor_review/Twinzor) someone suggested to him that "If you want to become an admin...try contributing to some XFDs," essentially advising him that if he wants to advance his Wikipedia career, he should pursue deleting articles. I'd hate to think that Wikipedia's users (or at least the ones involved in this argument) are using my article, and others, as mere stepping stones for their personal advancement.Weaseal (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not recant, as I still feel the article reads as an advert. Assuming good faith that you did not intend it to be an advert, I struck that from my post. However, you have not addressed the matter of notability. Yes, you have found an outside article independent of the source... but all that source does is verify that that FeatherChat exists. We accept that. But for inclusion on Wiki, a subject must be notable and have THAT verified by a Reliable Source. If you can establish that, I will happily reverse my position. With respects,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I took this article to AfD is because my initial prod was denied, but the issue was not addressed. Contributing to XFDs doesn't mean just deleting articles, I could just as well be voting keep for articles I think should be included. The suggestion in my review however is not the reason for my nomination of this article. I would not have taken it here had the article been fixed, or the prod template been kept. I don't feel we've come up with new reasons either, since my argument to delete has been the same all the time, and that is because the article lacks good sources. I agree with Schmidt that the lwn.net article alone wont establish notability, but that is ultimately up to the community to decide. --Twinzor Say hi! - Do I suck or rock? 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG &#x260E; 21:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.