Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goofey


 * 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. henrik • talk  20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Goofey

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unmaintained instant messaging software with no signs of historical significance notability per WP:N or WP:NSOFT. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with you, but WP:NSOFT is an essay not a  policy or guideline.--Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, an essay is a valuable source of rationales. WP:NSOFT is only enforceable as an explication of the way WP:N works regarding software, and as such is a good ground for a position in AfD. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom.. It should redirect to Goofy. Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, probably redirecting to Goofy is a better idea as far as this spelling is alternative or frequent. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Easy call. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  I've looked through the various Google searches for Goofey + "instant messaging" and there is simply nothing to be found, as expected from Goofey's description as something WP:MADEUP by three first-year CS students.  Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Couldn't find anything to grant notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't prove notability, but I think it's a mistake to simply rely solely on Internet searches for the usage of software that predates the web. If you look at the source code the majority was mostly written (and presumably used) in 1991-93. --ozzmosis (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I searched Google books and Google scholar as well before deciding there was nothing. Msnicki (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact I wouldn't bring this software here if there was at least any indication that it has any kind of historical importance. But it doesn't: a more advanced Zephyr appeared before this one. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.