Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisg


 * 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)

Pisg

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep — Weak keep - Article has potential, has references and seems to be more than a "perl script". ContinueWithCaution (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to pisg (IRC), redirect pisg to Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, put a for on Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. pisg (the program) is a standard package included in many Linux distributions, including Gentoo, Debian, and Fedora Core, to name a few, which I think gives it some measure of notability. By the by, that a program is written in Perl does not make it any less notable, simply by that criterion, than a program written in a "non-scripting language", though I'm sure that's not what the nominator intended by the words "non-notable Perl script". &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Linux distros contain several thousand standard packages. That does not make them notable. What makes it notable is significant attention from multiple third-party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * 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)
 * Strong Keep and Move to pisg_(Software) I found an additional third party reliable source that cites pisg . It's also found it on many reliable sites including rpmfind, sourceforge, Gentoo, ubuntu, debian 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for the non-answer. You have established verifiability, to be sure, but not notability.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is already established by the book reference that already exists on the article.. 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)
 * 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)
 * I don't really care for your opinion. According to WP:N it's notable. Let's stick to the guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline requires multiple sources that are non-trivial. By the guideline, this is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are either confused or deliberately being ignorant. In good faith I will clarify:

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)
 * PircBot 1.2.5 Java IRC API: have fun with Java. (non-trivial mention, verifiability)
 * Users and Channels: Study Channel Statistics with pisg (non-trivial section in a published book, notability)
 * pisg in Gentoo (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
 * pisg in Ubuntu (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
 * pisg in debian (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
 * pisg in fedora (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
 * pisg in freebsd (non-trivial inclusion, notability)
 * pisg on freshmeat.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
 * pisg on sourceforge.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
 * pisg on ohloh.net (non-trivial project page, notability)
 * pisg mention on Advogato in PircBot article (trivial mention, verifiability)
 * pisg mention on linuxreviews.org in Irssi article (trivial mention, verifiability)
 * Top Ten Tricks and Tips for New IRC Users by Paul Mutton / mentions pisg (trivial mention, verifiability)
 * US-CERT.gov: United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team: PISG IRC Nick Cross-Site Scripting (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * pisg - Script injection (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * securitytracker: pisg IRC Statistics Generator Input Validation Flaw in 'nick' Lets Remote Users Conduct Cross-Site Scripting Attacks (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * securityfocus: PISG IRC Nick HTML Injection Vulnerability (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * xforce: pisg nick cross-site scripting (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * secunia: pisg Script Insertion Vulnerability (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * osvdb: pisg Nick XSS (non-trivial security report, notability)
 * #haskell @ freenode.org stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #uw @ rougueUW stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #perl @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #joomla @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #apache @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #fedora-ambassadors @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #PortableApps.com @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #twiki @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #gentoo @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #wikipedia-en @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #fedora (Weekly Stats) @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #dosbox @ Freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * #rhel @ freenode stats (usage, verifiability)
 * ChanStat service using pisg (usage, verifiability)
 * various channel stats by kakurady (usage, verifiability)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: All of the sources show verifiability, not notability. (except for the book source) Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence to support your claim? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The book I added to this article as a reference is a reliable source and meets the criteria required by the notability guideline.

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 and its talk page  (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: Articles for deletion/PIRCH, Articles for deletion/BitchX, and 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)
 * Delete - Sources found are trivial, not reliable, or enough to establish WP:N for this software. 16x9 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Define 'trivial', most are "reliable sources" according the wikipedia's guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2009 (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.