Talk:PyGopherd

Notability
Is this gopher server software any more notable than Bucktooth that has been recently deleted? It doesn't appear to be maintained or used on a significant number of gopherholes; it isn't known for introducing any revolutionary features or to be used to host any famous or important gopherhole or anything to make it stand out of the other gopher servers. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Notability is established by reliable sources, as detailed at WP:N. The one ref to wired is only a few sentences of coverage, which isn't enough on its own. Without additional coverage, this article could reasonably be nominated for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to this, notability is assessed on a case-by-case basis, and whether an article survives a deletion nomination or not can depend on who participates in the discussion. The deletion of one article does not mean we have to delete another. NemesisAT (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * pygopherd is still used on many gopher servers (although its usage is declining since it's python2), and it introduced the URL hack for itemtype h. All that aside, I don't know if it's notable enough for wikipedia. zcrayfish (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an article about John Goerzen which describes his published work, so we could merge PyGopherd into it. Anton.bersh (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I spent some time digging through the notability topics. It still appears to me that this gopher server software is not notable. It does not satisfy the WP:GNG. Even after this discussion started, no reliable sources (please note the plural), supporting the claim that the topic has received significant coverage (i.e. more than a trivial mention), have been added to the article. As of now, the article only lists an old news item in Wired, where the software is mentioned but in passing (see also WP:ONESOURCE). Are there any other sources that can satisfy the WP:GNG? If so, please add them, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I have similar doubts about the John Goerzen article's notability, for the same exact reasons (only a few links to primary sources, like his personal page and published books, the rest are unsourced statements about him; even if the Wired item was added there, in my opinion it would still fail the WP:GNG). 84.69.182.103 (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to? Doing so would just make PyGopherd harder to find as searches will bring up John Goerzen instead. NemesisAT (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BHTT – your argument is invalid. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Who says the material is unencyclopedic? Sorry, I don't see how my argument is "invalid". NemesisAT (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read what it says under WP:BHTT? Have you understood it? And, while we are at it, can you restate in full your valid reason why you believe this article fulfils the criteria for notability, even though it has received next to no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources? Also read the WP:PPOV – your 'I don't see' statement is not an argument. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly that this shouldn't be an article, nominate it for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If PyGopherd is not notable on its own, it does not qualify for a dedicated article. As an alternative to deletion, I propose we move the bit of content of this article that is supported by Wired source. After the merge, PyGopherd can just redirect to the relevant section within John Goerzen. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge as an alternative to deletion, however, my personal preference would be to keep both as separate articles. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)