Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archiveopteryx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 for now, without prejudice to recreation if this package attains wider notoriety. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiveopteryx

Archiveopteryx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally PRODed an nn, but an editor left an impolite message saying that he was reposting the content, which is (I guess) one way of contesting the thing. Anyway, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability, slightly advertorial. Delete. Xoloz 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment A google search yields 12,400 results which do appear to conquer with the content of our article as far as I can see, borderline web-tech article. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't usually do this, but I hope you mean "concur", not "conquer"... I was really confused for a second! :) I think web citations for a modern tech-industry product can be deceptive, so I don't agree with apply the Google test here. Xoloz 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: article was only restored "from cache" after being deleted, so I have "really" restored the previous revisions to keep GFDL history intact. Миша13 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't seem to do anything that any other mail server can't do, and no sources to say it does it better. I do like the irony of an "archive" being the article's downfall :) --WebHamster 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See below for details about its notable features. Or give the stub’s current content a close reading. Also, I find it interesting that you implicate that irony could be a determining factor in your voting behavior. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The irony is just incidental, it has no part in the formation of my 'vote'. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since this is a case of borderline notability, it might be worth keeping the article if it explained the technology very well. However I am still puzzled, after reading the article, even after reading everything that sounded useful from the first two pages of Google hits, and some of the package's own documentation.
  1. From the web site, it sounds like it is being written by two programmers in their spare time. So not a real software company yet.
  2. This is a mail server. What clients work with it? (e.g. on PC, Mac, Linux)
  3. How do you operate all the nifty database search features? (Do the available IMAP clients support that?)
  4. Is this server installed in any actual companies? Is it being sold for money?
  5. What packages compete with it? Don't any other mail servers use a real database like PostgreSQL?
  6. If this package is in actual use, surely the trade press would have written about it.
Just doesn't have a serious air of being a real product that is having an impact on the world. Perhaps later.

EdJohnston 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. See below for details.
  2. I suggest considering that this is a stub, not an article. Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So, are you itching to delete Binc_IMAP too, for all the same reasons? Sean M. Burke 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ask and you shall receive. --WebHamster 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I always say, "delete the stub, never get the article." Or ya know, maybe mail server software in an inherently non-notable class. Speaking of which, you might also choose to spend a few months going thru [[1]] fact-checking the notability of «artist»s' articles and stubs. Some gallery shows make them notable, some are merely vanity shows, and some are probably just fictitious. It's an exciting and rich opportunity to adumbrate and apply new Wiki-policies, thus gaining Wiki-whuffie. Speaking of which, is the article whuffie notable? It's merely a plot device in a single, unimpressive, novella. In conclusion, Carthago delenda est. Sean M. Burke 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A journey of a 1000 miles... If it's truly worthy (and this goes for any article of any topic) then it will resurface in a better form, they always do. It may not be in a week, it may not be in a year, but sooner or later it will. Gardeners have known about pruning for years. It's tried and tested. There's no reason it can't work for WP. --WebHamster 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm an Archiveopteryx developer, so I'm not voting one way or another. I've made minor changes to the article in the past (updating the "current version", for example). I just thought I'd address EdJohnston's somewhat puzzling comments, and then I'm withdrawing from this discussion unless someone asks me a specific question.
  1. I don't know what gave you this impression. The software is developed and supported full-time by Oryx (as it has been for the past three years), which is a GmbH registered in Munich, as mentioned on the "about the company" page.
  2. It is an IMAP/POP server, so IMAP/POP clients work with it. The web site has a list of tested clients and known problems on the page for the appropriate protocol. The details didn't seem appropriate for the Wikipedia article.
  3. I assume you're referring to virtual folders. They're implemented in such a way that existing clients can use those folders, but again, the details of how to set them up seem inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
  4. I don't know what you mean by "actual" companies, but a number of people do use it in production. It is available on commercial terms, as explained on the web site (but surely that has little bearing on notability as such).
  5. There are a few other servers that store mail in a database (e.g. Dbmail). To our knowledge, Archiveopteryx is the only one that completely discards the RFC-822 storage format, and uses a properly normalised SQL representation for mail (which it was designed from the start to do). That is primarily what makes the software notable, in my opinion. Whether that meets the notability criteria for an entry in Wikipedia is for someone else to decide.
  6. Again, I have no idea what you consider "actual" use.

I had considered editing the article to add more detail (several weeks ago), but I refrained, because articles on somewhat comparable open source projects (e.g. Dovecot) didn't go into more detail; and also because it seemed likely to be considered a conflict of interest, and we have no interest in either advertising or deception.

-- 59.176.72.33 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

One wonders whether your actually coherent, informative, and relevant explanation will ever compel anyone to change their votes, or do anything other than just reflexively mash "delete". It just seems to be that kind of day around the Wikiwelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.
  • Keep - this stub notes the product's unique and notable features. My policy: give stubs a generous benefit of the doubt, or they never get to be articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburke (talk • contribs) 3 September 2007.
  • Comment. When we see an article appear about a commercial product, we often assume that the maker had some hand in the creation of the article. If the article doesn't look like a complete job, an AfD debate sometimes follows, and this is essentially the last chance to get the full attention of the creator for improvement of the article. The way the article reads now, it is about the five millionth mail server, that says very little about why we should be interested, or even why we should buy the product. (People who make products are sometimes unaware that a truly informative presentation in Wikipedia is likely to sell more copies).
So here we have a rather unimpressive article, and we have to decide if we should keep it in its reduced state, or try to catch the attention of the creator to make some improvements. I made some effort above, and I see I got the attention of one of the developers, which is good. However he didn't grasp the obvious point that he is free to improve the article himself, and that could make the article more worthy of being kept. Note that Sburke, the one who opines about Wikipedia philosophy, and believes that small stubs can grow into great oak trees, is the creator of the article. The anonymous developer who gave substantive answers above, 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs), appears to be different from Sburke. Either gentleman is welcome to improve the article. Don't be shy about actually stating whether you have real commercial customers who are paying for the product. If you don't, then complete frankness is often a winning strategy. If the entire product is available as open source, then explain how. EdJohnston 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (again, in response to EdJohnston's comments above).
  1. Yes, I'm different from Sburke.
  2. I was reluctant to expand the article significantly, as I stated earlier, because I thought it might be considered a conflict of interest, and not because I somehow failed to realise that I could.
  3. I looked at the entries for Postfix and Cyrus (among others), and have now expanded the Archiveopteryx entry. I added "Features" and "Security" sections and, most importantly, a "Mail Storage" section that explains the unusual storage model and its consequences. I can add more/other details if there is agreement that the modified article is heading in the right direction. (Suggestions are welcome.)
  4. There are two references to the open source license, and the links to the project's web page prominently feature "download" links and release notes, and so on. This is consistent with the articles for many other open source projects. I don't understand why any more detail is needed here, or indeed, how I could provide it, if it were.
  5. I don't know if it is now permitted to remove the tag that marks the article as a stub. (I note that, e.g. the Postfix article is of comparable detail, and is not marked a stub.)

-- 59.176.72.33 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. Thanks to 59.176.72.33 (talk · contribs) for greatly improving the article technically. Would still like to see some outside commentary to prove notability. Even if one of the web sites that follows PostgreSQL developments had commented, that would be useful. I agree that the Stub tag can be removed. If Archiveopteryx isn't found notable this time around, I imagine it will in the future if development continues at this rate. EdJohnston 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, regrettably, I cant find notability here. The product looks great, but I've only found a lot of minor mentions[2][3] ; we need some significant independent coverage. John Vandenberg 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Minor mentions" (e.g. [4][5]) are all there are. Since everyone seems to be opposed to retaining the article, could someone please delete it now, rather than leaving it with a big "scheduled for deletion" banner? -- 59.176.72.33 08:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • An admin should be coming along soon to determine the consensus of this discussion; as you have acknowledged minor mentions is all that there are currently, an outcome of delete is very likely. John Vandenberg 08:45, 8 September 2007 (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.