Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSIP

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. Consensus is that this is a Keep - a very weak keep, but a keep at this time nonetheless the panda ₯’ 23:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OSIP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not constitute significant independent coverage. The sources that are independent are just a passing mention; the sources that are actually about the topic are non-independent. TheCascadian 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is useful. As I am currently writing a sip client I only found this SIP lib and think it is awful that WP has only one article about sip libraries. There is no other sip lib currently in WP. For me this article contains much information which I am interested in. IMHO it would be better to find more appreciated sources but to create a AfD. --Txt.file (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [[1] and [2] and offline sources listed in reference section of the article. ~KvnG 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the sources cited amount to significant discussion in secondary literature. And if the wikipage contains information useful to software developers, well, WP:NOTMANUAL. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources given under 'references', the first one is just a link to download it and has no other information than a list of files, the second one is a license that does not appear to mention the article's subject anywhere (searched for OSIP with the find tool), the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ones are all primary sources i.e. the websites of companies that promote this product, the eighth one doesn't have an awful lot in it, the ninth one only briefly mentions Antisip (but not OSIP), the tenth one is another primary source, the eleventh one does not mention OSIP, and the twelfth one is an email from a mailing list. The others are books which I haven't bothered to check. The first-person language - 'we did this and that' - also needs to go. Finally, an afc submission remarkably similar to this article was declined multiple times for various reasons. I would !vote one way or another except that I know diddly about afd and I'm too lazy to check the book sources, but at the very least, the 'we' business and the download page being used as a 'source' should be taken out. Cathfolant (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also just noticed the intro doesn't seem to summarise the article and isn't at all sourced. That can't be right. Cathfolant (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have removed many references to avoid the page to be a manual (WP:NOTMANUAL).

I have also removed the links that seems inadequate and all third party and commercial software. I kept the notable ones (which appears in wikipedia).

About above comment "The first-person language - 'we did this and that' - " : those are quotations from books. They can't be changed. Those are reliable sources only and prove the notability. At no place "we" is used beside in the quotations. So the comment is very unfair and not applicable to the article.

eXosip article was rejected a third time. However, it seems unfair to use such argument. New wikipedia authors have to learn and make their experience.

Aymoizard (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear that they were direct quotes from books. If that's true they should be formatted differently or something. They could also be paraphrased - a section consisting entirely of material pulled straight from books seems a bit odd. Cathfolant (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the citation from books format to clarify the fact they are quotes from books.Aymoizard (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The book references only give examples of the oSIP library in use. They don't, in my opinion, provide "significant coverage" of the oSIP library sufficient to assert notability per WP:N. Nor does anything else mentioned in the article as it currently stands. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep. I still feel the encyclopedia would be better served with an article about GNU projects rather than individual articles about barely notable projects, but I agree that the Linux Magazine reference asserts notability. Now can we please clean it up? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a few additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OSIP&diff=608947545&oldid=606479087 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jodi.a.schneider. Do you care to register an opinion as to whether we should keep or delete the article? ~KvnG 13:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It meets GNG and appears to be widely used; there are scholarly citations far beyond those mentioned in the article.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.