Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Instant Messenger

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. keep arguments are mostly by assertion and the argument that the article is lacking adequate sourcing hasn't been refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Instant Messenger

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

This software is not apparently notable by third party sources. No sources exist in the article and searching for them shows a few minor mentions amidst many other hits for the non-capitalized use as a generic phrase. Miami33139 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: one just cannot remove an article with 5 years change history and more than 100 changes by 76 editors, covering the opensource product still in use and under development, using "no notability" criteria. And as for boring formal requirements, there is some russian-language coverage in Computerra (reviews at 1, 2). Honeyman (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your initial argument that "one just cannot remove an article with 5 years change history and more than 100 changes by 76 editors" is invalid. It happens here on Wikipedia all the time. JBsupreme (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's a problem of Wikipedia rather than of my argument. Honeyman (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't paid enough attention to the existence of Serverless Instant Messenger article; as I was a SIM user long (two or three IMs) ago and even kept an eye on the development, I never seen it being called "Serverless Instant Messenger". Can anybody provide any significant reference/proof of SIM being officially translated as "Serverless" rather than "Simple"? Unless it may worth to merge most of the contents of Serverless Instant Messenger article into the Simple Instant Messenger article, but delete the Serverless Instant Messenger article itself. Honeyman (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian language ~~sources~~articles above, while not devoted to this product exclusively, do amount to "significant coverage" per the notability guideline. Alison22 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source not sources. Both of the links are on the same website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've revised my comment. Alison22 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a one paragraph review considered significant? Miami33139 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are actually two paragraphs, one in each of the articles, and both are of substantial length. I believe that, collectively, they constitute significant coverage. Alison22 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Single paragraph is not substantial length. Miami33139 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reliable sources with some reviews of the subject: http://www.ixbt.com/soft/im.shtml#10 http://www.thg.ru/software/linux_communication_software/linux_communication_software-03.html --Maxxicum (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And one more: http://www.itc.ua/node/22610 (there is also a message below that this article was published in the journal). --Maxxicum (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Computerra articles above were too; at least one of the articles has a distinct mark that it was published in the paper version of the magazine. Honeyman (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: it is notable you can merge with Serverless Instant Messenger — Neustradamus (✉) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Neustradamus. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are indeed a number of reviews on Russian and Ukrainian sites linked above. I don't know how reliable or important those sources are. Pcap ping 09:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2. The exact same product has a 2nd wiki article Serverless Instant Messenger, which was prodded. I've added it to this afd. Pcap ping 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the articles an merge the other with it. Computerra is a reliable source for reviews, and so is ixbt.com (Alexa rank 132 in Russia [1]; they have an English version of the site too, but which has less stuff.) The software developers don't seem to have an official explanation for the acronym(?) Sim-IM, so the article should probably just be moved to Sim-IM as well. Pcap ping 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info: Description as in the instalation package (in openSuSE distribution): «SIM (Simple Instant Messenger) is a plugins-based open- source instant messenger that supports various protocols (ICQ, Jabber, AIM, MSN, YIM). It uses the QT library and works on X11 with optional KDE-support.». No comment on notability - 85.240.250.195 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GPL licensed open-source software. Samboy (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement says nothing related to the notability criteria or sourcing requirements. Miami33139 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously (per most editors). This is just part of one editors deletionist rampage, arising out of a hatred of FOSS, apparently. LotLE×talk 20:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Merge and redirect with the suggested article. It meets notability requirements. I think that no decision should be made on this article without first consulting the people over at the Wikipedia software Project or their guidelines for notability should at least be consulted andyzweb (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Seems notable enough to have a mention somewhere.. Merge would be okay.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (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.