Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pydance


 * 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 Nacon kantari  20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pydance
No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, just a DDR clone like the others listed on Dance Dance Revolution, nothing really demonstrates that this needs its own article. Ashi b aka tock 01:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк 05:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, non-notable software.  SkierRMH, 21:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- completely functional DDR simulator written in Python isn't quite 'non-notable' sendmoreinfo 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - a DDR clone written in Python may be an interesting curiosity, and a testatement to the creativity and doggedness of programmers, but I don't see this as passing WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notablity made in article - and I was unable to establish such via a quick search. No sourcing, only references the software project's own page. --Krich (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Stepmania and Flash Flash Revolution are the only two DDR clones anyone cares about these days. - Chardish 09:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. No offense, but I think FFR is much more notable for its forums than the game itself, which is more of a sort of community activity than an earnest DDR simulator. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. At any moment in the day there are about 1500 people on the site. vBulliten says there are "79,874 active members." Not too sure how vBulliten judges that, but I'd say about only 1,000 of those "active members" use the forums at all; maybe about 150 of them are long-time users. Just a rough guess. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, and the FFR game gets played 100,000+ times per day. That's far, far more than the number of daily forum posts. - Chardish 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into something, maybe Dance Dance Revolution or perhaps Stepmania. I doubt it deserves its own article, but I think it's worth a mention somewhere. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, Popcon by-install rank of #11186 out of 61725 for package pydance. Not really all that impressive but far from abysmal. Might be merge material... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to have 15,000 articles for the top 15,000 Debian packages? Ashi b aka tock 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Popcon is not exactly that straightforward to interpret, while it is simple in principle; think of it as a glorified Google test. You can set a rather vague limits and interpret accordingly. WP:SOFTWARE suggests as much about its use, only that it can and should be used to gauge software's notability. My interpretation is that software above 10,000 line is notable and anything below 15,000-20,000 is probably chaff, and there's a buffer zone that fluctuates depending on what time of the day it is and how much coffee I've had. (See also below for time of the day.) You can probably find some other AfD where I'm pulling different figures out of my sleeves - it's all based on a gut feeling. My current idea, solidly on this gut feeling, is that if we include 15%-20% of what Debian thinks is their most remarkable software, we're sailing smooth and not including utter garbage. Also note that this thing tracks packages, not software; Debian compiles one source tarball into one or more packages. (There (at least used to be, if not still) packages celestia, celestia-common and celestia-gtk, and it's not uncommon to see -common and -data packages, not to even mention -doc packages!) Different versions of software can get into separate packages, should the maintainers keep them around to ensure compatibility. (There's mediawiki1.6 and mediawiki1.7.) There's pseudopackages that just depend on other packages. In the upper end, there's Software You Can't Remove Lest Stuff Would Break. And libraries and -dev packages, well, it's better not get into them, or we'd be still talking about them tomorrow. My point is, popcon by_inst &lt;10,000 is much less of work that it sounds. And remember that MediaWiki is pretty darn remarkable and popular and it's still in the 7000s, last I checked. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (The following is 60%-serious tomfoolery, not a point or anything.) I see the nom's "No reliable sources" and raise "Press mentions to save an article no one will likely ever care about" (I'm sorry it's past 01:30 here and I've never had any clue about this smooth poker lingo ever, and I've never even read the article on this fascinating card game. I'm just a poor geek kid that was raised with Mario instead of Proper Manly Games.) I was pretty sure my chiss-sweesed brains had actually remembered that there was a mention of Pydance in some Linux magazine. Looks like they have a list of press mentions, but this one lists somewhat trivial mentions from print side (I have no idea if Linux Format covered it aside of just shoveling it to CD) though some online mentions are nontrivial. However, the article I'm remembering isn't here. (I'm thinking of Linux Journal, probably Marcel Gagné's column, but my memory is probably completely messed up in this regard, and it is, as mentioned above, past 01:45). Therefore, I see no other resolution but change my recommendation above from solid Weak Keep to extremely firm Weak Keep. (You know, because that's still based on notability rather than verifiability.) It's not the most remarkable DDR simulator or even influential, even when it's pretty impressive someone pulls this off with just Python - and like other people said, Stepmania kind of stole the show on this genre of software on OSS side. I'm just saying Carthago must be deleted. I mean, "lack of sources" argument is a bit funny argument if I waltz to the home page and find press rave. Now go forth and do the right thing anyway. Oops, I shouldn't use logic. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ('round 02:40 here, unless this clock is lying)
 * Delete. Not a notable DDR-clone. Like Chardish said, the only two DDR clones avaliable on the computer anyone cares for are Stepmania and FFR. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not voting for obvious reasons, but I will mention this existed long before Stepmania went GPLd, and even longer before it worked on anything not Windows (you can verify that with the release dates of the programs; not sure what "no reliable source" means in reference to free software...). Certainly not a popular clone, but does Wikipedia want to have articles on popular software, or historically notable software? That being said, Wikipedia has too many stupid free software articles, including this one. piman 04:49, 26 December 2006 (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.