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.
No references. Poorly written §hawnpoo 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, neither is a valid argument for outright deletion. The lack of references could be handled with a ((unreferenced)) tag for a month or two before trying deletion; and being poorly written just means that you could fix it yourself. What matters is if it meets WP:GNG. It might not, but it isn't at all clear that it doesn't. -Lilac Soul(talk • contribs • count) 18:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, A link to Debian authbind package is right there in the article's External links section. This software is included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution which means it already meets WP:N. Tothwolf (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do a half dozen i8n libs. I don't see how being available in a major distribution's package repo qualifies it for inherited notability. That said, looking for print sources to cleanup the unref'd issue noted above - Bound to be something. MrZaiustalk 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Authbind has been included in Debian GNU/Linux since etch [1] and its also included in Ubuntu [2] A quick Google Books search shows the software is mentioned in a number of books such as: Debian GNU/Linux Bible by Steve Hunger 2nd edition, May 2001 ISBN 0764547100 pg. 609 As for the i18n question you posed, going by WP:COMMON I'd think i18n libraries probably wouldn't justify their own article. Coverage of those would probably be much better suited for an article about i18n support. Larger more complex libraries such as gnu libc, I'd very much expect to have their own article. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It seems pointless to let this one run due to the fact sources are readily available for this topic. Tothwolf (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I agree with Tothwolf here -- sources could easily be cited and five minutes worth of work could rewrite it to where it at least uses proper English. Matt (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: poor nomination, no existent reason for removal. – 74 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has reference; no longer poorly written. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree that this was a weak nomination: the relevant questions are whether good sources exist, not how "good" the page currently is. But a single debian package page (a page which has almost no content!) hardly establishes WP:Notability. Authbind gets no google news archive hits: [3] and barely any google book or scholar hits...and upon investigating these "hits" I found none of them actually discuss or have any content about the material...the text either doesn't appear at all, or appears only in a list. The only possible reference I found on this utility was: [4] which has two very short sentences. There isn't enough material to justify an article. We need to find more sources that actually write about this topic at length and establish its importance if we are to keep the article. Cazort (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was established long ago that being present in a Linux distribution means a program meets WP:N. In this instance we also have a book source. Can you find any software other than something such as Firefox or a general 'Linux' mention in Google news? Google news is not a suitable argument for 99% of Open Source software. Tothwolf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked in the "book sources"? Unless I'm missing something, they do not talk about authbind in any length whatsoever. Some of them, when I clicked through and did a text search, did not even contain the text "authbind" which makes me wonder if they're search errors. The ones that contained it contained it in a list, without any actual content. There is barely enough accurate sourcable material to back up an article of more than a couple sentences. Small articles are great for inclusion in wikipedia when they can be expanded. If you don't want to delete, how about we merge/redirect somewhere? Cazort (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have. I also know that Google hasn't indexed even a fraction of the books about open source software. Here is a link to the CVS repository for authbind [5] The author of authbind is Ian Jackson who is very well known in the open source community. Tothwolf (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you were not able to find much visible page content via a Google books search is Google leaves out large viewable sections of books (aka preview) so as to not hurt actual book sales. Tothwolf (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will trust you, if you have actually found significant coverage in one of those texts, then I would be fully in favor of a Keep. Cazort (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and rewritten the article with what I had immediately available. I've included enough information now that it should be possible for others to further expand it. Tothwolf (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (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.