Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDE Applications


 * 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 keep. No prejudice for or against any proposed page move. RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

KDE Applications

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is being deleted on ptwiki, and all sources in this article are either primary or related to KDE, completely violating WP:N and WP:NSOFT Biel  talk  23:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe in pt-wiki there are not other sources but en-wiki does include other sources as well. Ipr1 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * *Neutral: *Keep: This will be a keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Because I am recusing from the discussion due to my contestation and reverstion of the move I need to change by !vote to neutral. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Your vote is completely unjustified  Biel  talk  11:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Ho hum .. looks like there will be a real cite bomb here ... I'd add Nash KDE Bible 937982529 for a bedtime read, at least the last part.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding my !vote. I trust my gut feel.  Its just I don't have a large amount of time for this.  I feel like giving the answer which will allow me to present my case an ANI but I shall refrain from that at the moment. I shall listen to blinded by the light. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: KDE applications is now called KDE Gear (or maybe that has changed already, too). Some of the linked sources are old and referencing KDE 4, but that should not matter to notability.
 * https://www.pcworld.com/article/260285/kde_4_9_brings_fresh_stability_and_performance_to_the_linux_desktop.html
 * https://www.pcworld.com/article/2027263/kde-4-10-delivers-key-updates-across-the-board.html
 * https://www.pcworld.com/article/2105981/ubuntu-14-04-beta-1-offers-a-sneak-peek-at-trusty-tahr.html
 * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/01/haiku-gains-kde-applications-as-qt-port-matures/
 * https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/01/kde-goes-cross-platform-with-windows-mac-os-x-support/
 * https://news.itsfoss.com/kde-gear-app-release/
 * https://news.itsfoss.com/kdenlive-21-04-release/
 * – K4rolB (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The sources have to be in the article, not on this page.  Biel  talk  12:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not true. It is enough that they are here to establish notability. It would be great if someone actually used them in the discussed article. K4rolB (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The fact that such sources exist means the article is fixable. Furthermore, not all sources are primary, and the primary sources are generally used to simply indicate the inclusion of programs in the project, and not anything that would be controversial. --Ipatrol (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources shared by establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Add more secondary sources, but KDE is absolutely noteworthy. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was moved from to  at  14:11, 12 August 2021‎.  I immediately contested that and moved it back at 14:27, 12 August 2021 (It has a lot of inbound links that would move to double redirects which I think is a problem.  It is always better to move a contested move back asap to avoid lots of knock on effects.  However I may have breached WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts..  Because of this I will now recuse from this discussion and leave a competent person to clerk the thing out consistently.  I would have mentioned this earlier but someone in my current location had decided it was a good time to have a vomiting session. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I moved it only because the name of the package has changed. Biel  talk  05:03, 15 August 2021 (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.