Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xnee


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Xnee

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product promotional page. The page has been marked for cleanup for more than 3 months with no sign of becoming an article rather than an advert. No sources demonstrate notability. Ash (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fix - GNU Project, which is definitely notable, endorses it, and credible sites such as [linuxjournal.com] talks about it. Needs major work and fix possible cut and pastes. (may still not be copyright violations if the original documents were also GFDL). I think this is just a bad stub, in itself not a reason for AfD. Greenleaf (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note) It is listed on http://www.gnu.org/software/xnee/ but I cannot find any "endorsement" by GNU. Unfortunately the appearance in Linux Journal is probably contestable as a poor source as the only article I can find listed there was written by Henrik Sandklef where he says that he was the original creator of Xnee.—Ash (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a part of GNU project, home page hosted there, and so on. That's the endorsement I meant. I'm not saying that any part of GNU project is inherently noteworthy but that's a different story. Greenleaf (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete': All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete no evidence or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability requires multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources; I can only find the one LJ story. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N but it's not a slam dunk: These seem to satisfy coverage with the first likely qualifying as significant.
 * http://www.research.rutgers.edu/~jhom/pubs/thesis.pdf page 56 through 57 (one full page), mention on page 72, and example script on page 75 where the author also added notes explaining some of the xnee script file format.
 * http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gghartma/final-report.pdf - end of page 5 to the start of page 6 (pages 7 to 8 in the PDF).
 * http://www.ibcn.intec.ugent.be/papers/2650.pdf - top of page 4 in the PDF (page 89 on original document) - Trival mention in that they used xnee as part of their test bed. Note - this appears to be an illegal copy of the document and so likely should not be cited as a ref. Legal copies are available from ACM at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378210
 * Google Scholar finds what look like more than trivial mentions of xnee in the following documents. All of them require membership in ACM or payment for viewing and so I can't verify how substantial the coverage is. I'll include the snippet Google shows.
 * http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1450095.1450132 "... Xnee records X11 protocol data such as Xevents from the local X server into log files and later, uses those recorded log files to replay those events."
 * http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240669 "mouse events were logged using a modified version of XNEE 2.00 (http://www.gnu.org/software/xnee/), which received data directly from the X11 windowing system."
 * http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1411759.1411779 "Xnee synchronizes replay against the X11 windowing events registered during record (eg change of focus, window pop-up, etc)."
 * Something that may tilt this as not qualifying is that WP:N states "sources" plural in "sources address the subject directly in detail." The implication is a notable subject should have more than one significant source. The second item in the list above has one paragraph about xnee which I generally classify as trivial coverage.


 * I was unable to find anything where someone wrote up a page, or even a section, reviewing xnee other than the software author's article in Linux Journal (which I don't count for WP:N as it's not independent). I did run across a number of ports which could be construed as independent coverage but all of them seemed to be part of mass ports of either GNU or X11 software. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've updated the article with a bit more detail that also allowed for citing three examples of independent coverage as references. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per WP:N. Lithorien (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per links above. Satisfies WP:N. The Weak Willed 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep suitable from the first, and better now. One good references would have been quite sufficient--it depends on the quality of the sources.    DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marc Kupper; thanks for saving an article! --GreyCat (talk) 06:23, 24 August 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.