Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisg

Add links
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 no consensus. MuZemike 17:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pisg

[edit]
Pisg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable Perl script. It has one third-party reference, which briefly explains and then uses this script in a how-to, so the reference is not really about the script and not really significant. Notability needs multiple and significant third party references. As a note to the closing admin, this was redirect to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government and a redirect should exist after close. An additional note about this reference book, which a lot of articles in this subject area seem to rely on - the book is titled IRC Hacks, maybe there should be an umbrella article on this concept instead of dozens of stub articles that will never grow. Miami33139 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage of this software app does not amount to multiple non-trivial. We are not a directory of Linux packages, nor should we be. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move to pisg_(Software) I found an additional third party reliable source that cites pisg [1][2]. It's also found it on many reliable sites including rpmfind[3], sourceforge[4], Gentoo[5], ubuntu[6], debian[7] and many more I am sure. I agree, the article does need improvement, but DOES NOT warrant delete. --Hm2k (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to discredit these "references" but they're not really references. Hm2k, do you realize that the first and second links are the same? The second is just a subset of the first, with exactly the same verbiage. Its the equivalent of a C|Net download.com link. As for the rest, in what way are those possibly considered "non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources"? They're just links for installation packages. None of this confers notability in the encyclopedic sense. JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apology accepted, I will also overlook your ignorance and your attempt to discredit me this time, just don't do it again. --Hm2k (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the non-answer. You have established verifiability, to be sure, but not notability. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is already established by the book reference that already exists on the article.[8]. See pages 49 to 52, the section entitled "Study channel statistics with pisg". I am sure you'll agree that notability cannot be disputed here. --Hm2k (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is not established. The book is not about pisg, the book is about IRC hacks. The book contains dozens of how-to guides, this does not make dozens of notable concepts. A single how-to recipe using a piece of software in a single book that is not about the software does not confer notability. I have dozens of cookbooks advocating specific brand names for ingredients and the authors are very specific about the brand names and models of their kitchen equipment. These do not confer notability on those brand name ingredients and kitchen utensils. Software does not have special standards from other consumer products. Miami33139 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pisg has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article:

--Hm2k (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great, blogs, undergrads making stats and download/source code distribution sites. We know it exists. We know Linux distros include it. We know people use it. What makes this an encyclopedic topic? Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Miami33139 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, so you admit that it is ignorance then. For your convenience I have now clearly outlined exactly what makes these encyclopedic in brackets after the link. NONE of these are blogs; the usage examples are notable for the channels they are generated for, not by whom they are created; the multiple OS inclusion demonstrates that this is a notable piece of software. This addresses all of your concerns. Further more, please read WP:NOTDIR, as per your comment, which clearly does not apply here. An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. --Hm2k (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All of the sources show verifiability, not notability. (except for the book source) Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book I added to this article as a reference is a reliable source and meets the criteria required by the notability guideline.
    Mutton, Paul (2004-07-27). "Users and Channels: Study Channel Statistics with pisg". IRC Hacks (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 49 –&#32, 52. ISBN 0-596-00687-X.
    Miami33139 makes claims such as "It has one third-party reference, which briefly explains and then uses this script in a how-to, so the reference is not really about the script and not really significant." and "Notability needs multiple and significant third party references." in the AfD nomination, both of which are false. The notability guideline also does not state what Miami33139 claims it does, and this is not the first time Miami33139 has made these claims. Miami33139 nominated this article for deletion strictly for retaliation and harassment purposes and on September 30, 2009, attempted a backdoor deletion by redirecting both the article [9] and its talk page [10] (the talk page being redirected in an attempt to defeat the bot that notifies WikiProjects). Examples of related prior AfD nominations where Miami33139 has attempted to discredit other reliable sources, including published works include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) (among others).
    The patterns of disruptive and tendentious editing by Miami33139 are disruptive to the efforts of editors who are attempting to improve Wikipedia and those behaviours need to stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources found are trivial, not reliable, or enough to establish WP:N for this software. 16x9 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pisg&oldid=1069207679"