Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{notavote}} |
|||
===[[PsyBNC]]=== |
===[[PsyBNC]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} |
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} |
Revision as of 02:03, 28 September 2009
PsyBNC
AfDs for this article:
- PsyBNC (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, sourced to newsgroups and documentation. WIkipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Clearly a notable piece of software.
- Note: You didn't add the AfD tag correctly, go back and add it correctly.
- --Hm2k (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly notable, no reason at all to delete. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you show how? Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The article is well sourced. Some of the sources listed (the ones assoicated with the project's own website) are not independant enough to establish notability but these 3 [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]] are. I don't understand why this article would ever have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do hope you are kidding. Ubuntu help documentation is effectively self-published. The University of Waterloo is primarily a mere mention, including this software when they found that irc based botnets have been found on their network. Freshports is regurgitation from the developer, nothing more, and not independent. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No I am really not kidding. If you don't like those 3 how about these that were not used as sources by the article: [4], [5]. I am sure I could find more if I were willing to sort through all 386,000 google hits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was hoping so, because those new sources are entirely not reliable. Everything2 is user-submitted content. Astahost is user-submitted content AND that content is a straight copy-paste from the Ubuntu docs. User submitted content is not reliable as a reference, and is absolutely not relevant to establish notability. Please read [[WP:N] and WP:RS to understand notability and reliable sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No I am really not kidding. If you don't like those 3 how about these that were not used as sources by the article: [4], [5]. I am sure I could find more if I were willing to sort through all 386,000 google hits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do hope you are kidding. Ubuntu help documentation is effectively self-published. The University of Waterloo is primarily a mere mention, including this software when they found that irc based botnets have been found on their network. Freshports is regurgitation from the developer, nothing more, and not independent. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep solid references, software is widely used and documented. There are over 300,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- None of the existing sources contribute to establishing notability. Google hits are not a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things. We would not tolerate such a lack of sourcing on any other subject. While I do see lots of hand waving I've yet to see convincing evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject from multiple reliable third party publications. That's how we judge notability here on Wikipedia, not by how much WP:ULIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)