Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psotnic
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 userfy to User:Mokhov/Psotnic as notability has not been credibly established. Skomorokh, barbarian 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Psotnic (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. No sources. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom due to a lack of sources which would indicate the notability of this software product. Google hits are really not relevant kids. JBsupreme (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references given on page. My searching could not find any news hits, book references, or coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, numerous sources, software is widely used and prominent in its own category: [1][2][3][4]. Nominator is not familiar with chat/messenger related topics and fails to provide compelling reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject matter. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate in a way that explains to me and a closing admin what you have done to falsify a) there are numerous sources b) software is widely used c) software is prominent in its own category. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two sources say nothing about it. The second two are commerce sites for unix hosts, with no decent info. These wouldn't be useful for an article, even if they were reliable sources, which they don't appear to be. Whether the software is prominent or not is shown by its coverage in reliable sources. As it hasn't received this coverage, it is not shown to be prominent. Quantpole (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please answer the question and not just disagree with my references. So far you did not bring up any evidence on your own that would falsify my statements a-c. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bots have you identified in your research? It would be good to synchronise our research to establish a foundation for a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for sources myself, and satisfied myself that I could not find sufficient coverage to write an article. I have followed WP:BEFORE, it is now up to you, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. I'm not interested in anything else, as it is not related to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Quantpole (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please answer the question and not just disagree with my references. So far you did not bring up any evidence on your own that would falsify my statements a-c. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bots have you identified in your research? It would be good to synchronise our research to establish a foundation for a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two sources say nothing about it. The second two are commerce sites for unix hosts, with no decent info. These wouldn't be useful for an article, even if they were reliable sources, which they don't appear to be. Whether the software is prominent or not is shown by its coverage in reliable sources. As it hasn't received this coverage, it is not shown to be prominent. Quantpole (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate in a way that explains to me and a closing admin what you have done to falsify a) there are numerous sources b) software is widely used c) software is prominent in its own category. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to kindly ask that 83.254.210.47 (talk · contribs) login with their real account and then start reading up on what is acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject matter. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to me, please, under User:Mokhov/Psotnic if deleted. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 13:28, 28 September 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.