Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psych Desktop 2


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Psych Desktop
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete WP:AUTO WP:N Asod123123 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, infact this whole AfD looks like automatic spam. 89.243.170.120 (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the first suggestion is invalid. It meets to the second one. 78.144.102.140 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, the current citations are enough. Jaymacdonald (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I use this software. It was created with every amount of open source mentality there is, it doesn't need to be "wikified" to be good. Wikipedia is going too far with their 'standards'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denton22 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete It was perviosly deleted as a non-notable advertisement article. I think we have the same thing going on again. Most of the references are from the web site itself. The others look to be trivial "roundup" articles or from gophp (their host?). -- Swerdnaneb 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * gophp5 isn't a webhost, it's a group of php-based projects that dropped php4 support in order to speed php5 adoption among webhosts. Also if you traceroute the two they use completely different servers: Psych Desktop's traceroute gophp5's traceroute
 * Weak delete, But only under WP:N. The nominating editor states that it fails WP:AUTO, however this cannot be, as it's an article about a program, not a living person.  So right out of the box one of the two reasons for the nomination is clearly shot down. With regard to notability though, it's previous deletion made me take a hard look, and I'm just not sure it passes the smell test for notability. It appears to be an advert - encyclopedic in tone but an advert nonetheless - for a seemingly new product with little note among third parties.  DJ Bullfish  05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Technically the software is released, because it is available via subversion. According to the mentality that it's not released so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, parakey shouldn't have an article (Psych Desktop was around way before parakey too). Psychcf (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed it... I don't think anyone is claiming tht it doesn't belong because it's not released. The original nominator mentioned WP:AUTO (probably because the primary author of the article has a name very similar to the title of the article) and WP:N (because the subject doesn't seem to measure up to Wikipedia's notability standard). -- Swerdnaneb 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in the previous AfD and was implied in the "weak delete" vote above (I could be wrong about that second thing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychcf (talk • contribs)
 * Unless your thick, and haven't looked, the article claims enough notability. 78.144.102.140 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am thick. But that's another discussion. I'm not worried about claims of notability. I'm worried about notability itself... with reliable sources. -- Swerdnaneb 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, my reason can be seen above. 78.144.102.140 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I liked your other argument better. -- Swerdnaneb 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a notability tag should be placed instead. 80.192.32.85 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Srsly? -- Swerdnaneb 21:09, 17 February 2008 (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.