Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xxxterm


 * 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   userfy. Page now lives at User:Czarkoff/Xxxterm. m.o.p 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Xxxterm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can't find any reliable references. This web browser is simply not notable enough and nobody has written about, although it got into the debian distro. mabdul 02:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. At the very least it needs to be edited to make it more neutral. The page gives off this advertise-y vibe with such phrases as "lightweight yet secure replacement". Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * What's wrong with this phrase? Or if anything is good, we can't mention it? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's wrong? There is no prove for that! Every developer can create code which is really short, but has major security issues. Only because it is lightweight it doesn't mean it is less code nor it secure. mabdul 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be relevant if the page stated that xxxterm is lightweight yet secure replacement. Instead it stated designed to be, and now &mdash; developed with a goal to become. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, right. But still is this claim unreferenced... mabdul 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now referenced. See, collaboration already occurs! ;-) &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I first have written a stub, and then started searching sources, as I was sure it has due coverage. It happened that it didn't, as it is only reviewed in a couple of blogs. Its popularity increases, so it will get some coverage in following months. While it violates WP:N now (evidently), I just think its impractical to delete it. P.S.: It got to Debian (and Arch, and Gentoo, and somewhere else) because it's popular under OpenBSD, thus the mantra lightweight yet secure. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy Not notable at this time. Maybe it will become notable but that's not enough a reason to keep it for now. Jarkeld (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has a committed editor (me), who's periodically patrolling the web. Though I won't object to userification, I just don't see any use in removing it from article space. In fact, the neutrality of my wording is already questioned, so multiple user's input will be needed anyway. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not the way how Wikipedia is working. First notability, then (maybe) an article in Wikipedia. Not the other way round. mabdul 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is already an article, and it can be improved. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Improving an article is OK (and there wasn't any improvement in the last month), but again: since you can't provide any third party, independent, reliable references, I don't see any reason why this software should be included in an encyclopedia because of its notability. mabdul 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for me the fact that it's mentioned in OpenBSD's FAQ proves its notability. There are just too few external projects mentioned and a strict process of material inclusion in that FAQ. The current Wikipedia policy's approach shifts the idea of notability from importance to buzz, so that we do have even articles on software that was buzzy, but was never released. Don't get me wrong, I don't state that this article should be kept because that one exists, I just want to stress that there is a significant portion of material that is inadequately covered.
 * I could write a review of xxxterm for the site that is considered a reliable software news site here, and so the notability would get established. That would even not qualify for gaming the system, as I'll get an editor's approval in a couple of hours and a bunch of metoo comments and plusit hits to the article within a day. Furthermore, I could go to /. and link the review there, so there'll be a bunch of reviews in blog-like news sites. Is this type of evidence really required? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There's significant coverage; I'm willing to credit the references cited with reliability for the purposes of this article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy Sources aren't sufficient to indicate notability. All are self-published except for one blog post (not an RS) and a single line in the OpenBSD FAQ (a passing mention). Because the user has promised above that there will be reliable sources in the near future, I'd lean towards userfy, with a deletion following if they don't materialize. Dcoetzee 10:00, 4 December 2011 (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.