Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X.Org Server


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

X.Org Server

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Only passing mentions and unreliable sources. Lengthier mentions are only in manuals. w umbolo  ^^^  10:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep/ Merge in article on Xorg foundation : Notable and main fork of well known software. At the thing this split forked from xfree86 to the new X.org there were numerous articles describing the transition and the reason for the fork. I would suggest merging the X.Org Foundation into this article as the foundation is mostly notable for this software. PaleAqua  (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I nominated all articles you mentioned for deletion. w umbolo   ^^^  16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, commented on other AfD. Would it have made sense to bundled the AFDs? PaleAqua  (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Switching to keep per discussion on other AfD. PaleAqua  (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is the main implementation of the X Window System, and one of the most important pieces of Unix and Linux OSes graphic subsystem. Yes, it's a very poorly written article, but that's not a valid cause for deletion. And by the way, the primary source is the preferred source (sometimes the only valid source) for a lot of cases such as a software announcement. --JavierCantero (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent my comments. Nowhere did I write that my deletion rationale was that the article was poorly written. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was saying that the article is not notable with regards to WP:GNG, and the available sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Primary source is not the preferred source, and it is never enough to keep an article because of primary sources, and even secondary sources describing a software announcement when it is routine or speculation. w umbolo   ^^^  10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I said that because you clearly have no idea about what are you trying to delete, and I blame the quality of the article for it. Anyway, some data from the statistcs page:
 * The article has got 499 contributions from 237 different contributors since its creation 14 years ago (18 March 2004‎).
 * No one has disputed its notability for that period of time.
 * There are 662 wikipedia articles linking to this page (internal links). There are also 23 interwiki links (the same subject in other languages).
 * Google reports 91,400 links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.Org_Server (external links)
 * The data shows that the article is considered relevant inside and outside of wikipedia. What we have here is a lack of reliable sources provided by the article (hence my original statement). --JavierCantero (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If I thought there were reliable sources outside the article, I wouldn't've nominated it for deletion. Very little coverage of the server has been provided in this discussion. w umbolo   ^^^  09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there is a lot of mixed terminology here. Sources keep naming "X Window System" or "X Windows" or "X11 Server" or "X Server" to what nowadays is the piece of software known as the X.Org server, and mixing specification, protocol, architecture and implementation. --JavierCantero (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some quick references, , , , --JavierCantero (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A press release, a forum post and blogs? All of them fall under WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. w umbolo   ^^^  10:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you want doesn't exist, because the books and papers that refer to the X Server predate the birth of X.Org project, and even newer books tend to use the traditional terminology. I have researched a lot today, and the results are very poor, , , , , , . By the way, LWN.net, Slashdot and Phoronix are tech news sites, not forums or personal blogs, and they often publish news and articles including the ones related to the X Window System and such. --JavierCantero (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * LWN.net, Phoronix are news sites. Slashdot is more a curated aggregator and discussion forum. Slashdot is best treated like trying to use Wikipedia as a source, better to see what sources it uses and check those. Granted back in the day it had a larger news staff and had more original stuff, but mostly interviews and opinion pieces. PaleAqua  (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am too old, but I remember the days where Slashdot was mostly a tech news site, before somebody invented the word 'blog'. Anyway, it's the only survivor to that era, and if we are going to try to find secondary sources, there are no many choices left. --JavierCantero (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some (post-2004) papers, but note they do refer to "X server", not "X.Org server":
 * J. Gettys, K. Packard (2004) The (Re)Architecture of the X Window System Proceedings of the 2004 Linux Symposium
 * K. Packard (2004) Getting X Off the Hardware Linux Symposium, 2004
 * M. Herrb, M. Hopf (2005) New Evolutions in the X Window System Proceedings of EuroBSDCon, 2005
 * I. D. Romanick (2005) Bringing X.org’s GLX Support Into the Modern Age Proc. 2005 Desktop Developers' Conference, Ottawa Linux Symposium
 * --JavierCantero (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is rated Mid-importance, C-Class on the Wikiprojects Software/Computing and I'm seriously questioning why this is at AfD. Absolutely inadequate WP:BEFORE in my opinion as my search on Google Books immediately reveals : X Power Tools - Page 40  isbn=0596101953; Ubuntu 8.10 Linux Bible - Page 177 isbn=0470502746; CentOS Bible - Page 69 isbn=0470538333; Fedora 11 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux Bible - Page 83 isbn=0470485043; UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook - Page 1012 isbn=0131480057.  Not to mention a wave of other related AfDs, prod and speedy's by the nom. which are causing a wave of disruption.  Perhaps article improvements and merges would help but AfD isn't the place or way to go about it and consensus at project level first would have been better as AfD is not the place to improve things.  A merge may of may not work but too important to be forced by an AfD in this case.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The third source contains three sentences about the subject. The fourth source is identical to the third source. The first source is at least one page of information, while the second and the fifth are minor mentions. w umbolo   ^^^  09:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – clearly notable and important, per previous comments. Brad  v  23:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG with books mentioned by . —  Newslinger  talk   01:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep concur with reasoning of Djm-leighpark, and sources like lwn. Was WP:BEFORE even done? Widefox ; talk 15:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark's sources consist of two identical sources containing three sentences about the subject, and two sources consisting of almost no information. w umbolo   ^^^  15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite the feedback above, have you still not done BEFORE? x.org server gets 83,000 Google books, "x.org server" over 700 (that's not including the fact this is the reference implementation of X, so there'll be more under different names etc). Why are you listing several articles at AfD but wide from community norms? Widefox ; talk 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Search of Google Books shows sufficient number of reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability. SJK (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2018 (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.