Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psi (instant messaging client)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Psi (instant messaging client)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found no notability for this instant messaging client. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: this reference is just enough to establish notability. I'll bring something more typical for the purpose of WP:N later, though I'm not sure whether this nomination is not a mere WP:POINT thing. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't. I just came across non-notable software so I nominated it for deletion. The reference doesn't even establish notability and even if it did, that is only one reference. SL93 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if so. I just couldn't believe you can be serious on that as Psi is probably the most notable XMPP client ever. Unfortunately most articles about Psi might have been lost since the peak of its popularity dates back to 2001-2003. It's hard to find those who didn't use it back then. As for the current refs:, , , , , should be just enough for now. Also note that the choice of client Google provide setup instructions for is a damn good indication of notability. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that you find Meebo non-notable. It also seems like you're trying to make a point by only nominating IM clients for deletion. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I now doubt you ever read my comments. I explained why Meebo is less notable then any desktop IM client ever existed &mdash; nothing to write about (apart from color theme probably). Psi, on the other side, is evidently notable with pretty unique features back in 2003 (probably something of a kind remains, didn't deal with it for more then 5 years). These are of different leagues. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, what point are you talking about? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus for Meebo is keep so I don't know what you're talking about. You're the only person wanting deletion of Meebo so why do you continue with comments about it? If I didn't read your comments, how was I able to respond? SL93 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the way your responses match my comments only proves my suggestions. You nearly never addressed my concerns. May be I'm talking about Meebo because you started talking about it in this AfD? BTW, I don't see why it is illogical to talk about Meebo and being the only person wanting its article's deletion. And why don't you answer the question? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I address your concerns? The article will be kept. I'm not sure what point, but it looks like you are trying to make some point with your AfD nominations being the same exact topic. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Then I'll help you: I came over Comparison of instant messaging clients and found it flooded with a lot of non-notable clients. Thus I initiated a series of AfDs and PRODs. So my point is pretty simple: non-notable software doesn't deserve dedicated articles. And I would like to make another point also that clear: please, when you want to start an off-topic discussion, do so on my talk page or related noticeboard, but don't flood the AfDs. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dmitrij's 2 – Softpedia News appears to be a reliable source – and Google's listing seems adequate for WP:GNG (if barely). 1 is not a reliable source, 4 appears not to be, 5 doesn't address the topic directly, and 6 doesn't mention it at all. It's an important piece of software so I expect there are other good sources. – Pnm (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw 4 considered a reliable source, though it might mean nothing indeed; 5 uses Psi for all examples (numerous screenshots in the book are all those of Psi), 6 is introducing some non-notable client as a fork of Psi, which pretty much shows the significance of Psi at the time. That is, I posted links 5 and 6 specifically to show that at the time Psi was close to the status of synonym of IM client. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that I gave a wrong link for (6). It was supposed to be . &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the sourcing. I will say I am not quite comfortable with arguments that the software is notable based on our judgment of whether the features were innovative or important. We don't make such judgments.  DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think my link 3 made a judgment for us, actually. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on what others have said. Google listing it as it does  means it must be notable in its field, one of the top 8.   D r e a m Focus  21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Only one reference, does not mean it is notable. This list mentions "all other messengers, able to use Google Talk's protocol", but not claim which is notable or not. Mentioning Stalin and Trotzki as a great leaders does not mean both are notable. Single reference is not enough. This is dead project. There are no unique features. It does not contribute to instant messaging technology at all. There is no information of usability (in the past), it should be deleted. Surely this article should be send in Gulag for oblivion for ethernity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.230.229 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which of seven is the one which isn't enough? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 23 January 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.