Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Input Method


 * 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. Almost all "keep" !votes emphasize the importance of the subject. Unfortunately, there is a pucity of sources and policy-based arguments. However, with the nom effectively being the only "delete" !vote, there clearly is no consensus to delete at this time. If improvement of the article is not forthcoming, no prejudice to a renomination after one or two months. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

X Input Method

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While some sources mention this in passing, I can't find any in-depth coverage of this outside a few technical manuals/documentation already linked in the article. I don't think this has stand-alone notability, through perhaps it can be just soft deleted by redirecting to X Window System, particularly if anyone can figure out a section this could be merged to? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Regular nom. who still has this in progress Articles for deletion/Kst (software) makes an arguably WP:POINTY nom. with let's take this to AfD and seeming fails to follow WP:BEFORE which says if you have concerns raise on the talk page first and don't waffle about how redirects have been considered in one's mind and not discussed on the talk page or at project line if the issue is more widespread. I can't actually be totally certain about what this is about however while with current linux and unix distributions keyboard input seems to run seamlessly out of the box I have distant memories of much tinkering and swearing with xmodmap utility and friends to get my British keyboard to work sweetly and stay working sweetly with X (let alone the graphics card).  The is a template Too technical for most users to understand (can't remember it's name) and that would be a good start.  This is probably a bit geeky.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a valid argument? There's no rule saying one cannot start multiple AFDs, or that only one software-related topic can be subject to deletion. And WP:BEFORE doesn't require talk discussion, it only suggests it, and for such obscure topics the chance of someone replying on talk are abysmally low. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Google books lists several books about X window programing mentioning in detail subject of the article (eg., pp. 359-363; I see only preview, but looks like RS). One may question independence of some of them, but coverage is certainly there (probably even more in offline sources). I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The book you mention seems to dedicate not 5 pages, but a single paragraph to the topic, 7 lines total . The term is also mention in passing on few other pages, but I don't think this constitutes 'in-depth coverage'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I wrote, I don´t see all the pages. As chapter 11.2 is named "Overview of the X Input Method Architecture", I assumed it is devoted to the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: As has been stated repeatedly, this software has historic significance and is still supported as a valid input method by major software vendors (IBM, Oracle, HP, etc.) it is also still used where compatibility is required between various Unix systems allowing targeting of XFree86/X11 Systems independent of age. User:Piotrus, this is the second time you have nominated this article for deletion, the last time being approximately 6 months ago. What do you feel has changed to warrant deletion now/What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements. I am attempting to WP:AGF and want to understand your viewpoint as I currently don't agree with it. Andrdema (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Historic significance according to whom? WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a recommended argument. If you have sources that it is used and discussed, present then. Opinions don't carry much weight. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL it states "you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic," Which I did. Using the term Historic Significance is a near empty term in this context as per it's definition: Historical significance is the process used to evaluate what was significant about selected events, people, and developments in the past. Historians use different sets of criteria to help them make judgements about significance meaning it can be highly subjective. I justify it's significance by pointing to a wide range of articles over time and regularly updated documentation spanning nearly 20 years including design paradigms and choices made during some of the first designs of a modular and portable input specification. As JoergenB points out there is over 130 links from within enwiki alone which is impressive for a part of an OS. Lastly, you have not answered my question. What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements. If you cannot come up with any, why do you insist on only picking apart others arguments? Andrdema (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concrete questions: (1) Could anyone please provide a link to the six months old deletion proposal discussion Andrdema referred to supra? (2), if Andrdema is right, could you please in a few words indicate why you take this to a new AfD so soon? JoergenB (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was Prod back then . Procedurally, this AfD is OK. Pavlor (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; but this did not help me to find that older discussion (even if it did contain Piotrus's brief edit comment). The link in the template box goes back to this AfD; and the history of this page (Articles_for_deletion/X_Input_Method) only concerns the present AfD; it was created by Piotrus 26 April 2019. Where is the earlier discussion archived? JoergenB (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are actually right I misread that diff. It was the beginning of this deletion request (the proposal) thank you for correcting that. I retract any actual or implied insinuation it brought with it. but the second part of my question stands. What do you feel is required/missing to make this article notable as double checking WP:GNG it does seem to meet the requirements.Andrdema (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources present in the article are very poor - either mention in passing or primary (not independent) official manuals/documentation. As such, they clerly fail GNG that requires them to be independent and in-depth. Sources presented here are a bit better, namely there is indeed a chapter about this software tool in, which seems like a reliable source. It is, nonetheless, a single source, and GNG requires multiple sources. If someone else can point me to another source that is independent and in-depth, I would consider withdrawing this nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments: There are approximately 130 links to X Input Method from enwiki. The manual for the method is gnu licenced, whence material from there should be freely available, which possibly might be of some use, if anyone wants to extend this stub somewhat. JoergenB (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Still supported, passes NSOFT and part of X.  scope_creep Talk  11:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think. (However, I may be a bit biased from being an older (68 years) university researcher, used to work with Linux, and actually (still) using POSIX for 'semi-graphical' output from a C++ programme of mine to an xterm.)  I did search for "X Input Method" with Google Scolar, and got just 32 hits. On the other hand, searching for XIM Linux gave over 900 hits.  Most of these were in Chinese, and I suspect  that (like the paper Localizing GNU/Linux and XFree86   A Thailand’s Experience found among the original 32, which also has a full section (of a few pages) about the X Input Method) they largely are concerned with locales, adapting to Asiatic languages.  (I incidently also found this blog from 2017 arguing for employing the X Input Method for precisely such reasons; but of course blogs are invalid as Wp sources.)  The first score scolarly articles seemed to be from between 2000 and 2006, which make them recent from my perspective (but perhaps ancient in the view of modern young wikipedians?). Thus, I think that the historical interest should be enough; but I'm not sure that XIM doesn't also have some interest as a protocol in actual contemporary use. JoergenB (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2019 (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.