Comment Let me see if I can summarize your summarization. All positive comments were ignored (democracy? who needs it?). Trivialized the guideline from WP:SOFTWARE that it in be in a major distribution like Debian. Your assumption that the "adoption" of a software (i.e. its user base) can be used as a measure is inaccurate since even WP:SOFTWARE#Controversial_criteria mentions that it is not a valid measurement. Completely ignored the fact that it is also in FreeBSD (another major distro), Alt Linux Sisyphus, Crux, Arch Linux and it seems Ubuntu (another one of them large distros), all of which are maintained by people other than the developers. Also ignored the fact that a google search for linuxdcpp returns 35,000 hits and that it's been mentioned on Softopedia and FreshMeat, which while they probably don't qualify as "non-trivial published works", they are still noteworthy. And this all ignores the fact that WP:SOFTWARE itself is a proposed guideline. From WP:SOFTWARE: References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.32.208.230 (talk • contribs).
I think the primary issue you are missing here is a distinction between DC++ and the Linux version. The notability claims you make above don't infer any particular notability on this version. Think of a similar situation in which we had a separate article for every major platform that Java has been released on. All of the issues related to the Linux version can be, and should be, discussed in the DC++ article. —Doug Belltalk 11:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What about having a LinuxDC++ section in the DC++ article and having LinuxDC++ redirect to it, would that be alright? qwm 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good solution. —Doug Belltalk 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
