Talk:ChatSecure

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... all of the other software in this class is listed here, and this came before all of them, is more feature-full and more freedom-respecting. Even more than that, to clarify the confusion of ownership with the Guardian Project, who have nothing to do with the project anymore, to whom this article was previously redirecting to. --Miserlou (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to state my belief that deletioninsts are absolutely killing Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, this article doesn't event meet any of the _criteria_ for CSD: No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) - it is _none_ of those things, this is an established, cutting-edge software project that has been operating since 2011, all of whose contemporaries are listed here. Please stop wasting everybody's time with incessant CSD nonsense. Miserlou (talk)

Miserlou well done saving it. I also agree Wikipedia:CSD#A7 is incorrect as it doesn't cover software. In fairness to User:DrStrauss, although incorrect, when tagged it only had primary sources [1] and so I think it was fair enough to want to challenge in some way as failing WP:GNG as presented at that time. There's more than two WP:RS now so it's all good. Widefox; talk 14:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Miserlou: excuse me for using numbered points but I've got a lot to say.

1. The article as it appeared when I tagged it (here) was lacking in the following areas:
   1. Notability: the only references and external links offered were to its own website. This means that it did not assert that it had received "substantial coverage" from independent sources.
      1. Your description of the content as "freedom-respecting" makes no difference to its notability: none of the notability guidelines state this as a factor to be considered in notability assessments.
      2. Your third message claims the software is "established" and "cutting edge". Wikipedia is all about neutrality. Making such statements requires independent sources, otherwise Wikipedia would become a soapbox. If something is "established" and "cutting edge" then prove it with sources (which you subsequently have done).
   2. Verifiablity: none of the material in the article was referenced by independent sources.
2. I'm not a deletionist, I don't know where you've got that from.
   1. Deleting poor content is just as good a cause as adding poor content anyway.
   2. Just because you don't agree with other editors' editing philosophy doesn't mean you have to decry it as destructive.
3. Maybe CSD was the wrong deletion method but there was certainly a valid case for PROD under GNG.
4. You've since improved the article. This dispute has therefore had a positive effect: had I not pointed out the article's poor points they would probably have remained. Due to this, you've corrected them, further enriching the encyclopedia.
5. "Stop wasting everybody's time with this incessant CSD nonsense" - I'm not sure if this is directed at me or deletionists. If it's me, then it's a false claim because the only article I've CSD-tagged which you've had any involvement in is this one. I suspect you are referring to deletionists in general as your user page seems to suggest that you are anti-deletion in the first place. Wikipedia has a deletion policy which is binding, unlike editors' personal views.

@Widefox: thanks for the mediation.
DrStrauss talk 15:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. 1. You absolutely do not get to take credit for my improving this article because you nominated it for deletion. It was being worked on anyway, all you have done is wasted everybody involved here's time. You cannot go around slapping your deletionist opinions on articles that are being actively being developed and then claim that by doing so you are spurring those articles to be improved. Quite the opposite - over-active deletionists like yourself have scared off more new contributors and removed potentially illustrative articles than have been "saved" by you blessing them with your diligence-inspiring CSDs. Furthermore - the fact that this is now a solid, worthy article proves that you were absolutely _wrong_ in your assessment of this article anyway. In future, please respect the time of other people by only making additive contributions to Wikipedia and avoid trying to play arbiter of importance in fields which you have no expertise in. Miserlou (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Miserlou, I find creating with at least two RS is a good start. I don't know DrStrauss's editing, but an single deletion attempt does not a deletionist make (we all make mistakes). If you don't have wider evidence I suggest dropping that label, as it's coming across a bit defensive of your work. I'm just glad someone's put time into the article. Well done. Widefox; talk 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)