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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remmina

[edit]

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

The article is about a software product that fails to establish any notability. References given in the article do not meat WP:RS and are either links to download sites, lists of packages containing this product, installation guides or self published blogs. The guidelines at WP:N state that notability needs to be established through the citation of non-trivial words on the subject from reliable, secondary sources. No such sources are given in the article. A Google search for additional reliable sources came up blank. Delete as per WP:N. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a clue if that Sourceforge thing hits the rules... Actually now that the idea gets put forward if it mentions the different updates being released is it a blog? Eh reliable or not it's the only one I'm edgy on. The others clearly fail the rules thus it fails the requirement of having two reliable sources and I'm going to !vote Delete on that basis. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourceforge does not count as a reliable secondary source. It was created by the person/community that created the software. Thus it is a primary source. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two more references to the article – reviews in Linux Journal (via TechRadar) and Addictive Tips. Together with OMG! Ubuntu! review already in article they (albeit barely) satisfy WP:GNG requirements. There are also other various reviews and news items in Ubuntu-related media, but I don't have sufficient expertise in Ubuntu journalism to assess their reliability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Linuxformat article is a good find. Addictive Tips's About Us was not easy to find. It might just scrape through WP:RS but I think it is a borderline "no". The OMG blog that was already on the article definitely fails WP:RS as it self-publish with no editorial oversight. As it stands I'll leave this Afd open and see if anyone adds something more but I don't think we quite have enough to pass notability but nearly. Rincewind42 (talk)

"OMG! Ubuntu!" was brought to WP:RS/N, and was found reliable. I failed to find any discussion of "Addictive Tips" there, but from "About Us" document you've linked I don't see any significant difference from other online magazines. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"OMG! Ubuntu!" was not found to be reliable. On the noticeboard you linked, two editors said not versus one said yes. Insufficient input for any conclusion to be drawn but definitely not a conclusion that it is reliable. Besides WP:RS/N is context based and so previous discussions there have no bearing on this article. OMG is one young journalism graduate writing articles supported by a few friends. It does not have editorial oversight. It is just a blog. For more comments look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMG! Ubuntu!. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has editorial oversight of a kind (albeit this piece is written by the editor). On RSN nobody disagreed that it isn't reliable, which, given the purpose and process of RSN equals to approval. Deletion discussion (rightfully IMHO) asserted that OMG! Ubuntu! isn't notable, which says nothing about its reliability. The only assertion of its reliability I see there is comment by iketsi, who asserts reliability, and gets replies like that has nothing to do with notability. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but in my opinion, you are wrong in your assessment of reliability of both OMG! Ubuntu! and Addictive Tips. Admittedly weak individually, together with LinuxFormat/TechRadar piece they provide enough coverage to pass WP:GNG just barely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:54, 20 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RDP is important, and the multiplicity of implementations matters, if we are to properly compare different networking protocols and the drive behind them. It obviously doesn't need the coverage of a major topic, but it is covered in books such as Ubuntu Unleashed, Matthew Helmke, Sams 2014, and Ubuntu Linux Toolbox, 2ed, Christopher Negus, Wiley 2014 which perhaps satisfy notability, though those sources are quite how-to-ish. If it was deleted, we'd certainly have to fold some of it somewhere, possibly FreeRDP or RDP, but as I say, I'd keep them all. Clearly the article could be improved, however. Kind regards, 217.155.120.113 (talk) 11:29, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 1 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.