Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psyced
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. The "keep" comments mostly fail to address the sourcing requirements of WP:N and are accordingly given less weight. "Plenty of sources out there" is not enough, they must be provided here and now. Sandstein 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Psyced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand since it's a recognised server software, under its previous name psycMUVE you can find more references.[1] Historically, this software is around since the 90s, was used by MTV Europe[2] and BrasNET.[3]. As a historical side note the original author brought the action command (/ME) to IRC.[4] Technically, Psyced works as a bridge between it's native PSYC protocol and various other chat/messenging networks (e.g. IRC, XMPP, webchat), not many open source projects offer this functionality. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "recognized server software" is not a reason Wikipedia keeps articles. A search on Swedish Google, a wiki, a doc site, and another wiki are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your deletion suggest should be rejected for formal reasons, you did not research the artcile's notability properly and still refuse to. The first link I provided points to more sources. Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with, because other editors have to spend time to rescue articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here an update, I investigated a bit further since the nominator refused to provide evidence for his claims. The software is popular in Germany and a direct competitor to XMPP, there are celebrity chats and political debates hosted with Psyced. The software has apparently been used in multiple German TV awards show, is this possibly the most popular German distributed chat system? Perhaps we can include this AfD in both software and Germany related deletion discussions to get better information. Dankeschoen! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a quick look at the German Wikipedia article here - and found no references there at all (apart from to the psyced website). I can't speak for how the German Wikipedia's notability criteria compare to ours, but if it is so notable in Germany, I am surprised that an article over there which has existed for 5 years has no references! All of the times in our article where this software was used are all in Germany. Perhaps this is one of those cases where the subject is notable enough for inclusion on the German Wikipedia, but not for the English one? Unless some kind of significant evidence can be found for its notability in the English-speaking world, I fail to see why this should be included in this Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you also take a quick look at the English Wikipedia article here - and comment on the 16 sources, print media coverage, solid DMOZ reference and over 10 years of documented history? You are long enough around to know the policy, that using Interwiki articles for claims of notability is quite irrelevant, in any way it's not something I based my argument on. Please look at the amount of evidence I presented in the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one that you deem reliable 3rd party source? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let me comment on the 16 references:
- Could you also take a quick look at the English Wikipedia article here - and comment on the 16 sources, print media coverage, solid DMOZ reference and over 10 years of documented history? You are long enough around to know the policy, that using Interwiki articles for claims of notability is quite irrelevant, in any way it's not something I based my argument on. Please look at the amount of evidence I presented in the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one that you deem reliable 3rd party source? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a quick look at the German Wikipedia article here - and found no references there at all (apart from to the psyced website). I can't speak for how the German Wikipedia's notability criteria compare to ours, but if it is so notable in Germany, I am surprised that an article over there which has existed for 5 years has no references! All of the times in our article where this software was used are all in Germany. Perhaps this is one of those cases where the subject is notable enough for inclusion on the German Wikipedia, but not for the English one? Unless some kind of significant evidence can be found for its notability in the English-speaking world, I fail to see why this should be included in this Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "recognized server software" is not a reason Wikipedia keeps articles. A search on Swedish Google, a wiki, a doc site, and another wiki are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- is the project page - not independent
- has "supported by psyced" - not about the software itself
- is by the project - not independent
- is a forum
- describes the CPAN client, so I would accept this as a decent reference, if there was evidence of significant coverage elsewhere, and assuming Arne Gödeke is independent of the project, otherwise it is from the project
- is about the WikiMedia Extension that allows Psyc to be used - useful to show that it can be used with WikiMedia, but not significant
- appears to be a forum/blog
- is by the project - not independent
- confirms it was used by a Danish-hosted MTV award - but only says "The event featured a PSYC backstage video chat hosted by Juliette and the Licks." - not significant coverage, no details given beyond that one short sentence
- Does not mention Psyc at all, from what I can see
- Is a project page - not independent
- confirms the existance of a gateway, but not number of hits, when last used, etc
- is a project page - not independent
- confirms the name change, but is from the project team, to a mailing-list, so is not independent - also no responses shown on the archive
- is another mailing-list/forum - again, no response seem to be present. Also, beyond showing the name change, it doesn't give other information
- (German) - This is about a lecture given last month in Germany, which will "show the current state of development." This at least confirms that the software is still alive! However, if that is the case, the arguments below about old software not having many references online is moot - if it is still beign developed, there should be something out there...
- Before I put my contribution below, I did check these (well, most of them - I'll be honest, there were a couple I hadn't checked - the ones that seemed obviously from the project themselves, and so not independent). I still say that there is insufficient evidence of notability, insufficient coverage for a product that is still being developed. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided, I stand by my delete !vote -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great we are getting somewhere! Could you be so kind and also review on the DMOZ reference and the print media coverage? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the article - well, as only the intro is there, I can't comment on how good or otherwise this is - it's about the software and the person, but an insufficient amount of the article is present to be able to say how reliable it is.
- The DMOZ link shows that it's on dmoz's list, but that then again, of the 20 other entries on that list, only SILC has an article on here. VolanoChat has been deleted several times in different guises (see here). Now the presence or otherwise of other articles is not directly applicable to this discussion, but the point is that just being on the DMOZ list does not inherently make it notable - it merely confirms the existence of the software - which no one has disputed.
- As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the discussion on the current sources. If new sources of information appear (see my message below) then I'll look at those, and consider the case based on those. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Looks like we have a good representation from both points of view. To take up one of your arguments, which I believe misrepresents how software development works, do you know of any product in the software industry that is actively used and not being developed? Let's take for example Apache, Firefox and Microsoft Windows which are all well known examples and still being further developed. If you look into the sources, you can see that there is documentation for psyced's use in a productive environment since the 1990s. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great we are getting somewhere! Could you be so kind and also review on the DMOZ reference and the print media coverage? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I put my contribution below, I did check these (well, most of them - I'll be honest, there were a couple I hadn't checked - the ones that seemed obviously from the project themselves, and so not independent). I still say that there is insufficient evidence of notability, insufficient coverage for a product that is still being developed. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided, I stand by my delete !vote -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of sources out there, not nn by any means. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If sources satisfying WP:N exist, please bring them forward. Google is not finding them, and I'm not seeing them. Remember there has to be enough to write a decent article about the software, not just a listing of its features. Wikipedia is not a catalog for software, after all. RayTalk 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there are "plenty of sources out there", put your money where your proverbial mouth is and demonstrate that. I'm not seeing it. JBsupreme (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In spite of ARS rescue tag, no sources have come to light. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage from reliable sources. I'm happy for Oldlaptop321 to find those sources out there and add them to this article - in which case I'll change my !vote if they are significant and from reliable sources - but I can't find them. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable software since it was mentioned as being used at notable events, like the listed MTV thing. Obviously they aren't going to go into great detail about something like this. Dream Focus 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY and the sources and articles that have been included in this article since it was originally nominated for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article in decent enough shape to stay. Richard (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2009 (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.
