Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoldBug (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. WP:GNG, the delete arguments here correctly interpreted the various requirements of our general notability guideline, and in particular did not duck the question of editorial oversight/reliability. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GoldBug (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability of topic is not established – no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. The article contains two reviews from German download sites, but both are too short to constitute significant coverage. My search for additional sources did not lead to anything I could use to establish notability of this subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: this page was blanked by anonymous editor with the following edit summary:"many Blog, ZD net, German heise mayne referance oiver a dozen, so deletetion of this issue"I believe it should be taken for keep !vote, although I would like to note that blogs don't contribute to notability, lengthy ZDNet article talks of Heartbleed and barely mentions GoldBug, and Heise.de entry in their download directory can hardly be called a source, provided that it is a rough summary of developers' website in 51 words. FWIW contributions of this anonymous editor do not extend beyond the topic of GoldBug. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dimitri, please stopp spamming this article with your deletion tag. This article is written nice and has many references.

Next to
 * - the written whitepaper of the project and presentation there are the
 * - Heise DL portal writing about that app, also many other not mentioned here as well like e.g.
 * - the softpedia editors review

References in this article is furhter
 * - Appwikia with an own rating of this app
 * - Adhoc new portal
 * - The bulgarian Portal OSArena is writing
 * - D-Net is comparing GB network on the levelof the OTR network
 * - The Italian QOPP Portal is reportign in italian language
 * - Hackers sSecurity plog has written a very lon article with personal reommendation abut this tool
 * - The German Editor Jan Weller has written a long Article about it
 * - Download.net also writes about it.

Overall more than a dozen references.

Compare it to RetroShare, they have only the torrentfreak article announced, all the rest is linked to internal ressources of the own projectpage! please add a deletion tag there.

You seem to neglect the work people invested here.

You need to be more wise under the approach live and let live. If this find not an agreement, then the wikipedia admins get a notifiaction.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.80 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of these are simply unreliable sources. Softpedia only has one user-submitted review for GoldBug, Appwikia is a wiki, Adhoc reprints Heist.de's description, OSArena is basically Greek Slashdot and has no editorial oversight, ZDnet does barely mention GoldBug at all, qoop (which doesn't seem to be reliable source at all) reports GoldBug in 57 words, Hacker's Security blog has no editorial oversight, Jan Weller's review is short (197 words) and lacks depth, and Download.com only has publisher's description. No single source from this list is usable for establishing notability, and significant coverage in multiple independent secondary reliable sources is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, could you please identify whether you are the editors behind these IPs? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dimitry, it makes no sense to talk with you as the deciding admin is not in depth in the content.
 * e.g. you say, that the ZD-Net autor is just memtioning the app. This is not true, he referrs the openssl for two networking apps, the one is the tor network and the other is the goldbug app network. The ZD-Author sees both on the same level and this has been written in the very established magazon ZD
 * as well the Editors with name writing a dedicated article about the tool are not considerd by you
 * there also bloggers with very high twitter followes writing a fully securtiy analysis about this tool
 * further there are platforms, rating this tool along detailed criteria.
 * It is not true, that Softpedia is having only userratings. There is the Author / Editor Andrea Matei - I checked that with softpedia - writing that article and she has also done the testings and the screenshot from the test. Softpedia is indeed one of the big portals doing these analyses, you see that as well within the screenshot copyrigth for the sofotpedia lab. Also the virus free certification has been done by this portal and editor.
 * your sentence "Security blog has no editorial oversight" is quite nonsense. You are an advocate. You want to dismiss a source, because it has no editorial structure at the beginning of the article? You neglect, that this article is written a whole page long about individual analyses about the tool.
 * you also say, you search for further references had would have not found one, as well this was not the truth as the added references for your satisfaction you comment on above, have been easily found. So please dont state, what is not the truth. For whatever reasons you do this.

You seem to have other reasons, starting a religious war about these tools. You already deleted other security tools and articles about secure messaging. The wikipedia is made for contributions, not for religious wars of users with a fixed idea who know the formal deletion processes better than those who want to construct.

The quality approach of this article is very good and the deletion process would stop users from adding or improving or translation content and making the wikipedia better. Just want to notify you, that this case has been brought up to the CEOs of the wikipedia. It is worth to review the advocates processes you run not in the sense of the qikipedia or for quality control, but for advocating your own goals for whatever tools you get paid or not paid for. Please learn from the approach "live and let live" to not be so harsh and consistent annoying. Otherwise this case has to be analysed in a wider forum and brought up to the discussion how wikipedia can be improved.

(I am a user and not the editor, but see this war you fight and ask me why?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.227 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but accusing me of some kind of agenda won't protect this article, and attributing to me the statements I did not make won't either. The subject fails General notability guideline, and the "references" you added did not change anything in this regard. Instead of wasting your time on lengthy complaints you would better search for reliable sources if you really believe that this software is notable enough to be worth encyclopedic coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dimitri you are the Creator of TOX https://github.com/czarkoff This is you acid motivaiton https://tox.im/ It must be brought up. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.229 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck pushing this version. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Good to hear, that you found your peace with this edited version of users Zhaofeng Li and Revent. You are the Tox-Messenger Developer and tag the GoldBug-Messenger Wikipedia entry with a delete tag ?? unbelievable and you already removed Information about Secure Messaging from other wikipedia pages, this is really - to say it friendly: biased. No, it is annoying and not a friendly colleague behaviour. Even if you discover weaknesses in the article in your eyes, which are not there - at court it would be a golden rule to be neutral with your biased background. You are attacking. Speaks not for Tox-Messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.119.231 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for the sake of clarity: I submitted these 4 trivial bug fixes to Tox (pull requests #826 and #827 for toxcore and #121 and #122 for toxic). Obviously, I am not Tox developer. And so what? How exactly does this influence the notability of GoldBug? FWIW, even if I was a developer of Tox, what would that change in this discussion? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)



Hi there, I am just stumbling over this silly discussion started by Dimitrij. Of course this good written expert article entry has to be kept!


 * (1) it is really a no go, that someone interested in other messenger tools and even working for one of them is providing a deletion tag. this is indeed attacking.
 * (2) In my eyes, the article does not need ANY references, as it is written by some experts an the new technology like the echo protocol or the new magnet uri standard or even the virtual email institutions or even the Adaptive Echo are absolutely innovative concepts, which have not been published in other scientific context, but have been described in wikipedia first. As the article is an expert article, no other citation is needed. This can be seen from technology knowledge view quite easily. All those not knowing the materia, need references of experts. Please don`t look at formal methods, but to the content. Notability is not defined by 11 versus 15 quotations.
 * (3) One other mentioned above, that Dimitrij is arguing very harsh. That´s true. I dont see any mal formatting nor any missing content nor any missing references in this article - no do I miss a missing integration in the wikipedia, the links to wiki-pages are quite good and when I read this article, I can understand it quite good and have many references as well to other wikipedia articles. This is the idea of the wikipedia, to weave it into the content. For me the article is very well done. Even IF there were some flaws, this should have been answered constructively and been improved, some wikipedia editors (maybe like Dimitrij ) delete due to thier learned methods instead of helping in a constructive way of create one reference and judgement by his own. This is so contentless and destuctive, what he does. Hopefully he has never an disabled child if we bring his behaviour to life. Thanks to all other editors in the history for improving this article (for the minor edits that haven been needed to make it a great collaborational edit). Dimitrij I see not among them.
 * (4) I looked up the criteria for software descriptions, and I find no point at all that justifies his hard judgment.
 * (5) As Dimitrij has set the tag and then voted as well for "Keep" and furthermore wished good luck after the articles has been revised by two wikipedia expert users if not even admins, I think no third admin should keep the deletion tag of this article now - but instead help to improve the article still if needed.
 * (6) If it comes for counting references, there are over a dozen
 * (A) I see many blogs reporting about it.
 * (B) I see some download portals, describing this new encryption tool in great detail
 * (C) There are some dedicated reports describing ONLY this tool . Several evaluations, so what do you want more?
 * (D) There are even two or more dedicated evaluation tests with criteria to rate this tool - these are criteria, which other tools have gone through as well, so it is quite common and tested.
 * (E) The Project has a very detailed documentation on the own website, this is first class referencing, I dont know, why any second paraphrasing platform could be better
 * (F) There are well established Magazines discussion this tool on the level of other tools like Tor etc.: e.g. ZD-Net, Security-Blog.
 * (G) The references even have several languages and the recipation of this tool is a global one.
 * (H) And again, references are absolutely not my topic, in case it is about judging the article.
 * (7) I think it should be kept to have the chance to keep the rising users already have translated the first portion of this article into different languages. His has started and will be continued.
 * (8) When I saw the twitter message, even now I still cannot believe it: a Messenger Developer and Entrepreneur is deleting the article about another Messenger. This is common behaviourism in the business world, fighting each other and grabbing or better closing the market. Wikipedia has an absolutely different approach. And the Open Source community too. I vote for the exclusion of Dimitrij out of the wikipedia, no - that would not be a better mean: a better solution is the education of him and not to send/chase him from court in the first step. But there should be a warning letter from wikipedia explaining the values of the wikipedia and its mission and vision (which is of course quality control, but not done over a deletion tag but with own helpings to get the standards we like). His harsh NO-GO Policy is not a welcoming attitude to new wikipedians and their articles, especially if it should be true, that in other messenger pages he as well has deleted newcomers or innovative content links. I personally feel, I would not like to have persons with this attitude met in the age of World War II. Here is something going wrong and the wikipedia need to take care for this. This discussion is more an ethical and compliance case of the wikipedia than a proposed one missing reference from an even bigger magazin.

Good Luck with your decisions, this are my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.121.211 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the article, and not the above discussion, I see this as a promotional article about whst is at the most barely notable software: as for the promotional aspects: going into great detail about even minor functions (which will be relevant to some potential users, but not to the general reader), an explanation of how it would have done better than other  software in dealing with a recent problem,  comparing it with other software, in a manner to make clear its advantages over them , using the second person sometimes. retelling the Poe story from which the name is derived, making multiple cute references to   folk tales, What I do not see is information about how widely it is used, or any other indication of notability. For proving notability, I see only one potentially adequate source. the Hacker10 review. (I did read the other ones with some help from Google translate--they are not substantial evaluative reviews)  However, I do not know the authority of the reviewer or the site. It's not enough to overcome the gross problems with the article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing reliable independent sources here. Download sites, blogs, passing mention, and quotations from insiders do not count. Goldbug claims to be a frontend GUI for spot on, but even spot on does not have an article here, so Goldbug could not redirect to it. The project may be meritorious in many ways, but it does not meet WP's notability requirements yet. Glrx (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to secure messaging as umbrella article. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Definately KEEP: To show the notability of this software, Qt developer Digia has awarded the GoldBug project as a reference project for Qt implementation in the official Qt-Showroom, see ref. Regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.121.214 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At any rate Qt Showroom is not an independent source for Qt software, and the linked page merely copies developers' description of this software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Think so? Qt is the Framework the app is written in choosing it is an AWARD, as only several apps have gone through this process and it has been selected. as well here some criteria are given and it already has gone through this. Awarded, selected and highlighted by the C++ Framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.122.46 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation for award, please! GoldBug description was published as another example of Qt framework usage by the developer of the framework, who did not even bother to write custom description. And you forgot to mention the giant green "Submit your application" button that "awards" whoever presses it. Unfortunately they don't provide a link to the list of all showcased application, although the list of "recent" entries already gives an impression. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For the love of information, please do not remove this article! Also, the original list of messengers was very informative. The abridged form is a simple mouthpiece. I have been following this discussion with fascination. I have tried to argue the importance of representation in a similar discussion. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_secure_messengers&redirect=no.

I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the intent of Wikipedia is to offer verifiable information. I’ll not bother myself with the precise details of what that entails. I see this notion of notability hurled about. Please understand that the definition of notability, in some circumstances, fosters representation for some while restricting it for others. I see a questionable application of a loosely-interpreted guideline. Perhaps the lawyers and the linguists can establish a precise definition of notability with respect to Wikipedia articles that are clearly more notable. Why has the existence of this article drawn harsh criticism and promoted the animated dismissal of the subject matter? It has come to a vote too! Lovely.

Perhaps the intent of the author is to promote ideas. One form of promoting ideas is to model them, that is, some ideas are clearer when they are represented by an implementation. Models provide, excuse me, notability about the represented ideas. What we have here is a model and the ideas that accompany it. Perhaps there is also the intent that this self-promotion will initiate the study of other ideas. Knowledge, fortunately, promotes itself. However, a medium helps. (Thank you Wikipedia!) Some wish to dismiss both the ideas and the model because, excuse me yet again, neither are sufficiently notable according to a conveniently-defined concept.

Please correct articles instead of subjecting them to opinionated importance. The presentation may not be notable, however, the contents may surely be. And please refrain from launching tirades of notability against new information. There are far more injustices in the world that ought to capture your enthusiasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia.hobbes (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now this is getting interesting. You registered an acount to complain about my cleanup of non-notable entries at Secure instant messaging, which included removal of then-redlink GoldBug. After a short discussion with The Banner, who said that "[t]he most easy way to show that notability is by having an article", you disappeared. A bit later MarcoSU emerged with quick and dirty article and hastly reinstalled it to the list. And now you re-emerged only to leave a comment here, showing that you are aware of relevant policies of Wikipedia and calling to disregard them. Is it somehow connected to your statement that you have a business interest in one of the removed messengers? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete promo, insufficient Reliable Sources The Banner talk 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Banner, did you ever contributed to a software article and have the wiki criteria conscious? Seems Dimitrij has raised all his brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.122.46 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. But do you have the Wikipedia criteria for notability correct in your sight? And please, don't start accusing. That is not nice. The Banner talk 11:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WT:WikiProject Software for the way I did it. Here, on Wikipedia everything is transparent. Now, please, explain us how did you get here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm reasonably convinced that this is noteworthy on a technical level. I would advise the authors to submit a paper to an appropriate peer-reviewed publication - maybe IJACT would be a starting point. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

After having passed university, I can tell you, this article is from technical point of view to keep. And it has lots of references, summa sumarum a good article. I hope you can find a more relaxed way for life (than this (don't get me wrong) bastard-like behaviour like byting on a fixed positon) than having these "fixed ideas". Please learn to organize social processes and bring yourself into a real team. The messenger and its ideas will live even if it is not mentioned in the wikipedia, but the wikipedia would definately profit from this article, when it is kept. Dont get me wrong, it seems that you get more and more upset, there more is written, even about you. Don`t make it a personal goal and dont define your identity on these processes. It would not be good, in the sense to be recomendable as a wikipedia server admin, you want to become. Wikipedia is currently discussing in the meeting, how can users have more fun with editing wikipedia. Ask yourself if it is fun to work with you. Thanks. Stumbler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.2.204 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * *Technically: KEEP the noteworthy article, but help Dimitrij :  Dimitrij, when I was in university, I thought this world is my live. After having left the system, I thought it was good to do and there is a life after this. Wikipedia seems to be your life, commenting every line and answering every judgment, sharing this with all your friends, to demonstrate power within this tool and your community.


 * Hello, this is MarcoSU, the initial originator of the article. I have seen many people contributing to this article and it has been improved a lot. Thanks for that. Thanks as well for discussing this all, I appreciate quality control and a lot of references have been added by now by those who discussed this article. I request a keeping of the article, as I have studied many months this application and protocols and tried to write this article as best for wikipedia. I will not do this again and it would be a loss of information as I guess in the future no one other will have such many time and dedication to describe it. It would be a pitty loss for wikipedia, which is not comming back and this cannot be the result of checking-processes. Thanks for a consideration of all the work and hours of the initiator of this article and as well the many contributors to it. The participation of others and even this vivid discussion on this page speaks for itself to keep the elaborated work. Thanks as well to Dimitrij improving the article and in one comment as well speaking/voting for keeping it. The process the article has gone through improved it too. Thanks in advance, MarcoSU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoSU (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2014 (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.