Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabbin


 * 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. There don't appear to be enough (or any) reliable sources available covering this to show notability. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jabbin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This was restored in WP:DRV as a contested prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I searched Google News archives and Google Books  and could not find anything relevant / significant.  If someone else knows of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties please drop me a line on my talk page so I can reconsider.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete again No sources to judge, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * keep : already said, you can look discussion pages, same person yet ... strange — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * References added — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 13:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep is a reliable source solely about the topic.  This appears to be be also" .  Meets WP:N, plenty of trivial sources/blogs/discussion to indicate this also meet the traditional definition of "notable" in that people are discussing it.  Hobit (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Linux.com article is significant coverage. The second one is a copy of Free Software Magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://code.google.com/p/jabbin-svn-pack-kubuntu/
 * https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/jabbin
 * https://launchpad.net/jabbin
 * http://jabbin.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jabbin/
 * http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/how_to_make_jabber_calls_using_jabbin
 * http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/controlled-applications/jabbin.html
 * http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/57711 — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard in a previous AFD that people pay them to write reviews on their software on Free Software Magazine which I don't know if it's true. The rest are not significant coverage. So that is one possible sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://wapiti.telecom-lille1.eu/commun/ens/peda/options/ST/RIO/pub/exposes/exposesrio2008-ttnfa2009/Clara-Delcroix/applications.html
 * http://www.generation-nt.com/comparatif-clients-jabber-test-messagerie-instantanee-msn-wlm-article-24991-8.html
 * http://www.icewarp.hu/termekek/09_uzenetkuldo_szerver/index.htm
 * http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/Nicolas_Vigier__nvigier_mandriva.com_.html
 * http://2007.jres.org/planning/slides/82.pdf <- Présentation de l'INRIA
 * http://www.slideshare.net/Nyco/clients-xmpp-sl07
 * http://blop.info/bazaar/xmppjabber-rmll2006.pdf
 * http://nyco.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/jingle-la-voix-et-les-sessions-multimedia-sur-jabber/
 * http://www.alijawad.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=21
 * http://walon.org/walon/jabber.php
 * http://faq.programmerworld.net/lang/fr/voip/voip-free-software.html
 * http://www.freebase.com/view/en/jabbin
 * http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/im.html
 * http://www.saint-andre.com/jabber/Jingle-Tech.pdf
 * http://projekt.ladokenheten.umu.se/main.php/open-source-voip-and-video-conferencing-software.pdf?fileitem=2719962
 * http://21talks.net/featured/10-skype-alternatives — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 10:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=166861&ugn=jabbin&type=prdownload&mode=alltime&package_id=0 SourceForge.net: Project Statistics for Jabbin — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * it is cited in book : http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&as_brr=3&q=jabber+jabbin&btnG=Search+Books — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 10:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The word Jabbin appears on page 94 with a URL. This is not a book about Jabbin. Please stop finding random text string matches from google searches and presenting them as sources. Miami33139 (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok but you can look that Jabbin is cited on different conferences ... I hope that you understand — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being canvassed at . Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant third party coverage of this software. 16x9 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to sourcing issues. Lack of independence and lack of source reliability. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jabbin is cited on conferences, reviews, book, and you can look sourceforge stats... It is not good sources ? and it still in development — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "In development" isn't a good sign. Notability isn't anticipatory. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the FSM and Linux.com articles. The other sources seem to be mere mentions. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the same source twice but according to linux about the content is user generated and appears to lack peer review or fact checking so its not a RS. Spartaz Humbug! 03:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't happen to notice that. Good catch. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per linux.com review (reviews there are reliable) and Free Software Magazine column, which is also reliable enough: At Free Software Magazine, a restricted number of people are marked as “columnists”. Their entries are edited by the FSM staff, and are always promoted to the front page. Saying that these source are not reliable is like saying CNN isn't reliable because they also have iReport. Pcap ping  10:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, coverage appears to be superficial and not "in depth". Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * This is more "in depth" than most IM client reviews I've seen. Pcap ping  05:15, 26 December 2009 (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.