Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psyced: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:55, 1 October 2009

Psyced

(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 sorce? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:55, 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. Ray^Talk 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]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *** 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! [[Special:Contributions/83.254.210.47|83.254.210.47]] ([[User talk:83.254.210.47|talk]]) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 **** I had a quick look at the German Wikipedia article [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSYCED 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. -- '''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Contact Me</font>]], [[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#5599FA">My Contribs</font>]]) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
+***** Could you also take a quick look at the English Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyced 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 sorce? [[Special:Contributions/83.254.210.47|83.254.210.47]] ([[User talk:83.254.210.47|talk]]) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet|list of Internet-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)<!--Template:Delsort--></small>
 *'''Keep''', plenty of sources out there, not nn by any means. -- [[User:Oldlaptop321|Oldlaptop321]] ([[User talk:Oldlaptop321|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Oldlaptop321|contribs]]) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)