Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citadel/UX

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citadel/UX

Not notable Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - a Google search for Citadel/UX shows that the software is well-known in some circles. However, having read WP:CORP I am unclear if this product meets the standards there, but I would lean toward keeping the article. Note that WP:CORP suggests putting the product information on the page for the company that makes the product -- but as this is an open source project, I am not sure how that applies here. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article edits done today by User:Art_Cancro have improved it a great deal and made it even more neutral. I am changing my vote from Weak Keep to Keep. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ [What is the difference between Citadel and Citadel/UX?] says "Since ours is the only remaining active Citadel project at this time, however, we now refer to it simply as Citadel." A Google search for "citadel" supports this claim. The reason I'm interested is that the IMAP page references a Citadel page which has been moved now, but apparently meant the software that used to be called Citadel/UX. I'd just like to see the confusion removed. If this page is removed, then this version should be featured more prominently on the Citadel (software) page, and then the IMAP page could refer to that page. --JamesStansell, 09:15, 9 January 2006 (CST)

There is some confusion here. The Citadel page was never moved -- the Citadel (software) page was the original page on Wikipedia. The Citadel/UX page, which is the one that refers to the product on citadel.org, appeared more recently. Citadel/UX is only one variant (and a clone, at that) of a software program that has a long history as BBS software. The developers of Cit/UX are mistaken when they claim that they are the only active Citadel project, as there are others. It is actually kind of controversial in the Cit community that they have taken it upon themselves to take over the name; not only are there other Citadels still being developed (though not publicised as strongly -- most are individual projects, not open-source or commercial work), there is even another WebCit that predates theirs (part of their Citadel project is called Webcit) and still has development as well (according to the developer). So, anyway, the Citadel page never meant "the software that used to be called Citadel/UX" -- it meant the Citadel BBS software, out of which eventually came Citadel/UX. The current link on the IMAP page points to the Citadel/UX page but calls it Citadel, which seems OK at this point. Making the Citadel/UX info more prominent on the Citadel (software) page would misrepresent Citadel/UX's role in Citadel history, I think. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely a candidate for deletion? The whole page belongs on Source Forge and not in an Encyclopedia? 81.99.60.240, 17:08, 9 January 2006

• Delete. Less than 500 Google hits for "citadel/ux" and less than 800 for "citadel bbs". Johnleemk | Talk 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Try searching for citadel and groupware -- remember that the Cit/UX folks just call their software "Citadel" these days. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As if anything that happened before the internet became popular wasn't ever "notable". SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As if the virtue of existence before the internet automatically made something "notable". At best, this is a merge and redirect to the main Citadel article. Anything major computer-related, especially if it's been in existence until now, has had plenty of time to rack up references to it online. The dearth of them indicates this particular brand of the software is not in itself notable. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Notice that this article on Network Control Program, which ran the Internet before TCP/IP existed, isn't anything more than a stub. Wikipedia, and the rest of the Internet, are really weak gauges of anything before the early 90s. SchmuckyTheCat 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • NCP has fallen into misuse, however. The article implies Citadel/UX remains in use until now, which means it has long ago entered the age of the Internet, and even Google. There's really no excuse for something computer-related and still in use in the present not to score a few thousand Google hits (at least) to prove notability. Johnleemk | Talk 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • As I mentioned above, searching for "Citadel/UX" provides an artificially low number of hits, as the software is called "Citadel" now. Perhaps the page should be renamed "Citadel (Citadel/UX)" or something; Citadel/UX is its historic name and it separates it from the larger concept of "citadel-type software", but it probably isn't the best current name for the page. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Just an added data point: I went looking for any magazine articles, etc. on Citadel(Cit/UX) and found that it has been reviewed in Linux Journal [1]. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 12:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the the Citadel (software) page is focused on the history of the many Citadel variants as a BBS platform, while the Citadel/UX page focuses on the one Citadel variant that has been refocused for modern Internet applications such as Groupware. If this article were to be deleted, then it would imply that all of the other entries in the "See also" section should also be deleted, because they, too, point to articles which describe open source software in this category. If the Wikipedia editors are unhappy with the way the pages are labelled, then perhaps renaming them might be appropriate instead. As a third option, the pages could perhaps be merged, although it would result in one very large article that covers a number of different topics. I believe that this topic matter is relevant enough to keep the article. -- User:Art_Cancro
  • The article has now been toned down, and is now comparable with the articles about other software in its category (namely, the articles listed in the "See Also" section). Please consider that a few of us who were involved in the original article's creation are new to Wikipedia and are just getting used to the style of writing that the editors prefer. The article is now more of an informative than promotional piece. Please consider retaining the updated (and significantly shortened) article as an alternative to deletion. Art Cancro 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Stifle 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While earlier versions of this page read like an advert to me, recent edits read along a more informative line. It would seem peculiar to remove this page (particularly with the recent edits), when the Citadel (software) page obviously seems prepared for individual links for Citadel+, Citadel-86, and DragCit (although these have not yet been written). As mentioned by ManekiNeko, since Citadel/UX has turned to calling itself simply 'Citadel' (regardless of how controversial the claim), searches for 'Citadel/UX' will likely bear less fruit than 'Groupware Citadel', which gives me 10 pages of results on Google, the first page of which (at least) directly address this Citadel variant. It seems to me, with this many results, Citadel/UX bears a little more than a mere nod for Wikipedia. Although this probably isn't the place to ask this, I wonder if someone couldn't expand a little more on the 'controversial' nature of Citadel/UX's preference to calling itself 'Citadel'... this strikes me as keenly interesting to Citadelians (I'm one of them, and know something of the politics that occured back in the late 80s with the various varients, but not to enough of a degree to credibly record them for Wikipedia). Specifically, I would love to find other active Citadel projects, especially any that might be derived from the original source. There was also a rumor, long ago, that CrT intended to create an updated version of his Citadel software completely rewritten in C++ or something, but I never heard anything more than that.--TreyVanRiper 15:20, 13 January 2006 (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.