Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jive.exe

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jive.exe

Non-notable piece of software. Speedy deleted already, restored by Tony Sidaway, I am now listing it here. Zoe 07:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC) * Delete, if already speedied, tag it {{deleteagain}} to make it stand. -- < drini | ∂drini > 07:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep as the new version is much better. -- < drini | ∂drini > 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in my opinion "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." does not provide enough context. it doesn't tell what jive is alhtough I'm assuming it's some non-notable conlang. Might change my mind if someone provided sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Write an article about Jive speak and merge this there. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jive is jive talk, like in Airplane! Zoe 08:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Firstly it's not a speedy deletion candidate (User:JYolkowski also made a comment to this effect in an edit summary which is in the history), and secondly it correctly describes the subject matter. I'll expand. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Done. It's quite difficult to find original sources on this because the idea is a simple one and it's been duplicated many times. The phenomenon is quite well known, however, so I provided some external links--including quite a number from Swedish Chef. I'll have to work on the categorization--if we have a cat for novelty software I haven't yet found it. There was apparently no existing cat for novelty software so I created one. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 10:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Query whether a category for 'novelty software' is necessary also. Proto t c 12:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - EurekaLott 12:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is one of those fun things people distribute by email. It's bad enough we have conlangs let along search-and-replace-style language-altering tools. Garrett^Talk 13:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment'. It's been the occasion of some interesting legal questions. Borkified and Jived documents were submitted as evidence in the case Scientology versus Panoussis, 1998 in Stockholm, as reported by freelance journalist Karin Spaink. The defendants claimed that this was legitimate parody; the plaintiffs, violation of copyright. I've started a small section on this and will complete it when I found out whether the issue of parody through automatic filters was ever decided. This alone would make the software notable, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• No vote on keep vs deletion but Rename to "Jive (computer software)" if we keep it. It's multiplatform. I've added some information to the article about the earliest implementations of this that I know of, which were distributed for Unix in the late '80s. Nandesuka 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Nandesuka on this. It should have a decent name. If someone wanted my opinion, I'd suggest that dialect filter might be most suitable, but I'd accept any other name that doesn't contain parentheses or punctuation--words should be enough and are more likely to be correctly remembered. But it's not that important to me. If this article survives VfD then is the time to talk about a move. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. GregAsche 16:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this spawned a whole genre of programs. Kappa 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - interesting footnote to software history. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs better name though. Alf 22:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It be some very notable honky code. ElBenevolente 02:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Nandesuka. Not sure why this was speedied and I'd support Tony's action in rescuing this article, and commend him highly for his work in improving it. Clair de Lune 08:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. whether notable or not doesn't matter. Rename if it is not only about a exe. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well written, this is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia depth and its breadth. Well formatted and complete it does no harm and sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. Rx StrangeLove 00:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rx StrangeLove -PlainSight 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Original speedy was valid. So is this article (though it definitely needs a move). No contradiction here. JRM · Talk 13:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to appear too argumentative (as if!) but what CSD would you have put the original under? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    First one: "very short articles providing little or no context". Mind you, I'm not disputing the context could be extended based on what was in the article and/or personal knowledge (you obviously did so). Further disagreements are tantamount to asking what context is needed before it moves away from "little or no context". A useful question, but one the CSD policy does not answer, and is left to personal opinion (with common sense applied, of course). JRM · Talk 15:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, while I understand your reasoning, well I don't think there should be anything special in a stub. If my son said "what's jive.exe" and I replied "it's one of those programs that translate ordinary speech into a weird dialect", he'd probably have learned pretty much what the program was about. If that can happen in speech I don't see that it needs any more in the way of words to convey the same idea in a stub article. I think we should be permissive of stubs like this that obviously make sense. I've no idea what extra context would be required than the correct juxtaposition of the concept: program, conversion and jive, which were all there: "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." User:JYolkowski had earlier removed a speedy tag because, he said, he didn't think it lacked context. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

    I note that at the time jive contained nothing useful, and JYolkowski only removed the speedy tag without a clarification beyond "I think the context is sufficient" (making it a he-said-she-said-but-I-think case for any admin clearing it out). But I'm not arguing the point here: we agree that a reasonable difference of opinion is possible in this case, even if we may disagree on the most productive course of action, and we also obviously agree on the outcome of this VfD. JRM · Talk 00:27, 23 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.