Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlyCounter

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PlyCounter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reliable sources are needed to establish the wp:Notability of the subject, but there are none. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Not even sure it asserts notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This product has been in the market for almost two years and is being used by chess players to notate games during tournaments. A competing product has an entry in wikipedia (Monroi). Here are some references monroi vs plycounter finding the right notation tool USCF approval letter PlyCounter product info MonRoi wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodknight (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Woodknight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- @Woodknight: It may be important and useful, but notability is a pretty specific thing on Wikipedia that boils down to whether or not a subject has received in depth coverage by reliable secondary sources. That it is used, implemented, allowed, etc. again may make it important but not notable. Articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and reliable websites (the details of what is considered "reliable" are here), but not letters, sources produced by the product's creator, sources produced by anyone in a business relationship with the creator (e.g. to use the software in another product), self-published sources like most blogs, and so on. If none of these exist it may still be WP:TOOSOON. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the coverage needed for WP:GNG. The sources are not independent, not reliable (blogs), or don't show significant coverage.Jakejr (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:14, 7 January 2015 (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.