Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phex


 * 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. @pple complain 09:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Phex

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a contested PROD. Grounds for PRODing and AfDing are a lack of reliable sources, and an advertorial tone. Xoloz 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, advertisment, BUT, the entire GNutella area needs editting and this is a useful source for those revisions. -- Apparently by User:72.244.34.50 on 15:17, 2 September 2007 (added by Bpringlemeir 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete - Unreferenced, no assertion of notability (just another gnutella client, as far as I can tell). /Blaxthos 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Xoloz; can't tell if this is a non-notable product or software developer, but lack of content means this article fails WP:CORP. Notability to come.--Gavin Collins 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a notable client. It is more notable than all of the GiFT derivatives.  The Phex developers are active in the Gnutella Developers Forum (GDF).  It is open source and does not have the backing of corporate dollars like some other projects.  There are many other gnutella clients that I would consider for deletion before Phex.  Also, Mike Blas has deleted links that reference the Phex article.  Specifically, in the Comparison of Gnutella software article.  Phex is also listed in the Gnutella wiki, although the Phex wiki article is not referenced. Non-active gnutella clients should be amalgamated into a dead gnutella clients pages.  They are notable in aggregate, to showing the number of failed projects as well as to inform people that they are dead.  Phex is a functional client that connects to the current Gnutella network, certainly that alone make it notable.  If it is deemed insignificant, the information should be merged with other minor working gnutella clients.  See also FilePipe, giFToxic, XoloX, Symella, Kiwi Alpha, for less noteworthy (or dead) clients. Bpringlemeir 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the text is not well authored. However, that doesn't qualify an article for deletion.  Many outdated gnutella clients have wiki pages.  It seems rather arbitrary that a functioning client of gnutella would be deleted before all of these defunct clients.  Specifically, if this article is deleted, then the majority of all articles referenced in Category:Gnutella  should also be removed as they are even less noteworthy. Bpringlemeir 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I redirected FURI to Phex as well. Bpringlemeir 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - First of all, Phex is not just "another" Gnutella client basically because it's not a rip-off of anything else and an implementation that is actually fairly up-to-date and complete unlike 80% of the others. It is noteworthy for its I2P integration. Also it has been used in a few academic studies as mentioned in and . More can be found here: . --217.87.62.239 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the original prodder. If there are other articles which you think should be deleted, please feel free to prod or afd them. Let me know if you need help. I can't imagine how simply connecting to a network makes software notable. This article presents no claim to notability and reads as if it is just an advertisement for the SourceForge project. -- Mikeblas 21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources cited by 217.87.62.239. I am also swayed by many of Bpringlemeir's arguments with the notable exception of "other similar articles exist" which is rarely a good argument.  --ElKevbo 03:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. However, that wasn't my argument.  I understand the motive for removal, given the entries previous poor state (and still less than perfect).  My argument is simply that there are worse (less noteworthy) clients with wiki entries.  It seems capricious to remove Phex when there are many obsolete stubs.  I guess I am naive in thinking that the worst should go first.  I would absolutely agree that historical gnutella clients should be amalgamated/merged to a single entry.  Perhaps I can have help with this? Should it be a new wiki or a section in the Gnutella wiki? Bpringlemeir 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep because Phex is one of the three major clients in the Gnutella network which was the first decentral network and is still running strong. Also it isn't controlled by a company and welcomes contributions from other developers. There are many clients which simply copy off LimeWire or GiFT, and there are many dead clients. Phex instead is an actively developed client, and as i2Phex shows, it encourages developers to cover new ground with it. Additionally, the Gnutella network is not just a network you can connect to. Instead there are two modes of operation: Just connecting (as leaf) and becoming part of the backbone (ultrapeer). Phex can do both, so it is able to form its own Gnutella network. Also it enables you out of the box to create private networks over the internet (as opposed to private networks only over LANs). I saw, that the article needed some references, so I added some and also enhanced the article a bit with more recent information (unsatisfying quality is no reason for deletion, but for improvement). Notability: Phex is in constant development since it forked from Furi in 2001, and the first Gnutella client was created about 2000, so it's one of the oldest clients (together with gtk-gnutella) and still active. It is one of the three major clients in the Gnutella network. It offers unique features (see the Phex article under "Features"). And it is avaible cross platform. —ArneBab (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have also redirected I2Phex here. -- Petri Krohn 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is not much more I can add and as one of the developers I'm biased anyway. Thanks to everyone who helped to improve the article. I hope it makes it a little more notable. GregorK 15:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm quite surprised I'm posting this. Had this article not been nominated for deletion, I'd certainly have not concluded it should be. It's just like any other Wikipedia article on a software program. It's informative. In fact, I found the article via a Yahoo! search (as I had read about the programelsewhere and wanted to know more about it).  The is article gave me the informaton that I was looking for. I can't imagine anyone feeling the need to delete it.... --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 10:12, 5 September 2007 (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.