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. In accordance with usual AFD custom, comments from new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article previously deleted in AFD process, several prior WP:SPEEDY nominations contested. Still the article lacks any references that could be used to establish notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, reviewing the "references" show that this is a PR snow job. We're at least making the Wikipedia spam consultants work for their pay now, which I suppose is something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article used to be with good quality, aligned with Wikipedia standards.[1] Somehow it was ruined, which is evidence that this is not a PR job. If it was, the company should have kept it in a good quality. I suggest, that we just revert to this version and then apply new information, if any, because this version is from July 2010 (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: I am curious: Why am I notified of this AfD? I am not the original author. I did clean up the article a bit, but so did many others. Fleet Command (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notified people who edited this article most. The rationale was that if you took time to edit it, you probably might have an opinion on it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! I see! So, it was not a bot's notice; you sent it personally. How very lovely of you. Thanks for your consideration and care. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is on Wikipedia for more than 2 years. There are 24 external references talking about Brosix. Many people contributed to this article in the last 2 years. Why do you think this is not notable and should be deleted? stefanch2 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanch2 (talk • contribs)
  • Well, I must say Stefanch2 seems to have a point. Is About.com not a secondary source? I am not saying it clinches the matter, but when it comes to notability, where do we stand? Fleet Command (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think that "about.com" is a reliable source at all. And even if it was, it is still not enough. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Don't think that "about.com" is a reliable source", ha? Can you please define "reliable source". If about.com is not, who is? (Stefanch2 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        • Good point. We have no formal definition of reliable sources, but those writing about everything out there with lack of expertise aren't generally considered reliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Brosix has been included in a US patent with both Skype and Cisco, showing that the brand is every bit as strong as others in this space. - [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.154.198 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it only shows labour relationships and budget. Notability is not inherent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no relation between the patent holder and the company. Skype, Cisco, MIcrosoft are also mentioned in the patent. Following your thoughts all companies are related with the patent holder, which is not true. Please, don't say unproved claims. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      • What makes you think so? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S.: could it happen you've inserted this comment between others to make harder to spot it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable. Brosix won three years in a row "Best IM" awards from about.com - a very notable source, 2011 - [3], [4], [5], 2010 - [6], 2009 - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also it seems is popular in some communities [12], [13], [14] (Stefanch2 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Linkfarm, blog and forums. None of these sources can even be accepted for inline citation, not to say about notability. Oh, and the so called "awards" are in fact readers' awards, placing it right after such "notable" clients as imo.im and Nimbuzz (note the links' colors). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you see linkfarm and forums in the external links? I don't. Readers' awards means "awards by people". Isn't this same idea of Wikipedia - people valued opinion and contribution. I think readers' awards are more honored than any others (Stefanch2 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      • Stefanch2, he is referring to your last three links. They obviously do not comply with WP:RS. Still, your About.com links remain, but lets discuss them in the thread above. Fleet Command (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if those readers awards were truly given by readers' vote (which is really dubious), this would be a typical case of unreliable source, as evidently lacks any degree of fact checking. The word "linkfarm" was a reference to "about.com", and a really accurate one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you read the About.com links, you will see this is definitely not a link farm. They just structured their site in a way to have a separate page for each category, the nomination and voting are also separate pages. I am not here to protect About.com, but Czarkoff, you still didn't define "reliable source". Your only arguments are unfounded accusations, sorry. Second time, can you please define "reliable source" ? And don't make me read Wikipedia articles - I already did it very carefully.(Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
          • Given the ratio of depth and scope of coverage, it is a link farm. I would consider its reliability as that of Facebook posts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This page isn't worthy of the company that absolutely should be included in Wikipedia. Let's update the page instead of deleting it. (Java Kingpin (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • If you believe that company is notable, you might want to write an article about company. This AfD is about the IM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually it looks like that is the name of the product and the company. Its a little confusing,but there are other entries for companies here. The page needs a serious re-write to make it more informational and less commercial, but I think that deletion may be a bit extreme in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.238.73 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutrality issues apart, we have a worse problem here: there is no single source that can be used to establish notability of software. Each of keep votes fails to move forward in this regard. As it is now, it has no chance. Frankly, the description of software suggests that the eletion is a safe choice, as this software isn't likely to ever become notable, given the technical issues — vendor lock-in isn't very popular these days. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Czarkoff, Following your thoughts, we should also delete the Skype page, because "vendor lock-in isn't very popular". It is easier to destroy (delete) than to build. Let's not destroy this page and try to upgrade it. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
          • The problem is not with vendor lock in, it is with no proof of notability. And vendor lock-in in software with initial release date in 2006 and lack of notability by 2012 shows that the argument about useful edit history in case of future notability also doesn't apply here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Why are you trying to delete one of the best IM services for companies? It's absurd! [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.72.185 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT? That's not to say that the claim is ridiculously incorrect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your claims are obviously not reasonable and blind-purposefully negative. You do not pose facts, but just oppose all the positive comments. Note that AFD requires objective opinions, but not personal attitude. If you do not like Brosix, you should not use it. But hundred of thousands do, and it is enough notable for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.230.229 (talk)
      • Well, he has the right to do so. In fact, that is why we AFDs in Wikipedia: To discuss. Wikipedia is not run by votes. And he has a point: Even the best IM software must provide significant coverages in reliable secondary sources, or else they do not merit an article in Wikipedia. If you love this article, well, so do I. But when it comes to Wikipedia, one must respect Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of the articles. Fleet Command (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • FleetCommand, I agree, he has the right to express his opinion. The other people also have the same right. If you love this article, please say how to save and upgrade it. Any constructive opinion is welcome. (Stefanch2 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
          • FleetCommand actually tried several times to express his opinion in a soft way. I'll summarize it for you: this article would have a chance to survive AfD if reliable sources ever existed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please also note, that this discussion is growing rapidly, but the amount of links is still limited to one independent source with disputed (at least by me) reliability, primary sources and blogs — in terms of the stated problem we stand where we started. Even worse, we standing exactly at the same level of notability which was previously considered worth of speedy deletion (see previous AfD). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: back in 2006 the article about this software was created by user:Stefantch (see contributions) and speedy deleted soon after that. This article was later re-created by user:KTMG (see contributions) now mainly defended by User:Stefanch2 (see contributions). Pretty alarming IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Side note: The article already passed the notability review in 2009 [16]. Why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is questioning it now? And why Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is the ony one who wants it deleted? Pretty alarming IMHO. Stefanch2 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link reveales that the sources were considered not establishing notability; the reviewer took KTMG's (author's) word about the article in early stage of development. Evidently, nothing has really changed since then. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't remember it happening that way, and I'm the author. I was given a chance by the reviewer to add more links in order to get past the review. That is all! It was not taken simply on my word that the topic was notable, and I don't believe that any reviewer here would simply take any single users word on the issue. That said, the page has been altered quite a bit since I wrote it, and need to have the commercial aspect taken out. Lets be honest, a fair number of smaller companies are listed here. Does Tekserve really need a page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekserve ? No, but we as a community allow it because they provide a service and the page is encyclopedic in nature. PS- next time you are getting ready to delete a page, you might want to notify the author and not just the frequent editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTMG (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Side note: He also questions another well known article Meebo and seems he is the only one who wants it deleted too. His arguments there are also weak as here. Pretty alarming IMHO. Stefanch2 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:SPA you linked, you might easy find that it definitely isn't about me. Furthermore, in case of Meebo I want it merged, and still it is a controversial point. This article is really very different, with the main difference being lack of WP:RS coverage and thus failure to pass even WP:GNG. That's not to say that I already saved several articles that were worth keeping, with some (example) being a hard fought victories. This case is just plain opposite: no single reliable source and no indication of notability in other regards (apart from WP:ILIKEIT rationale). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Notable software, mentioned in a US patent together with Skype, Cisco, Microsoft. It seems Brosix is notable enough that others recognize it. [17] (Stoyansk (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • So notable that you registered an account specifically to defend it? If so, you might want to read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG and list here some sources that would be acceptable according to this policies. That would help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , but revise as needed to avoid promotionalism. AfD is not necessary in order to edit an article.The awards are sufficient to show notability DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some links that might be helpful for the notoriety issue to help the discussion not go around in circles, as it seems to be doing. Here are the links:

• Tech Crunch - http://www.crunchbase.com/company/brosix
• Inside Social - http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2011/05/brosix-a-business-oriented-sky.html
• App Brain - has community votes as well - http://www.appbrain.com/app/brosix-instant-messenger/com.brosix.android

Would any of these qualify as notable enough? I think that Tech Crunch is certainly reliable and well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.238.73 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally because first is directory entry, second, though might be considered weak WP:RS as it is a blog hosted by local newspaper) is very short to be considered a review and "LXer user let me know", third is author-generated. As everywhere on Wikipedia comments don't count as directly forbidden in WP:SPS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing notability under WP:ORGIN. No demonstration that this product has had significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. --Ifnord (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2012 (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.