Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyjamas (software) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyjamas_(software)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyjamas (software)

Contested prod. This software has received insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:N. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's endorsed by Google themselves, and already ref'd as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no it isn't. The only "reference" on the current page is a link to the project page. Being hosted by Google Code is not "endorsement by Google". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pyjama is mentioned on several other sources such as Pyjamas, the GWT for Python, Pyjamas2 0.4, GUI Programming in Python or Blurring of MVC lines: Programming the Web Browser. Together with the related projects Pyjamas-Desktop (actually a port of Pyjamas) it allows writing applications that run - unmodifed - on both the desktop and the web making it suitable for cross-platform, cross-desktop, cross-browser and cross-widget-set free software application development using the very popular Python programming language (see Pyjamas - Python Applications for Desktop and Web. I think this shows very big potential and is therefore - in my view - notable.--Shellmich (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)— Shellmich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 3 of those sources aren't reliable (2 blogs and a wiki) and one of them is not independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor claiming to be the article's main contributor (diff) has apparently acknowledged that there's no coverage in independent sources. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is another reference not mentioned above Pure Python Web Workshop: Pyjamas + JSONRPC + Django at Linux 2008 Conference and Workshop. --Wallach2008 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A scheduled talk on the subject is not a reliable secondary source which would indicate that the project is notable to a wider audience. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say this article needs some significant work to be high quality wiki material, lets push for a rewrite and not a deletion, I come to wikipedia several times a week for references to new code projects like this one. I hope the developers/users will take some time to rework the page so it can contribute better to wikipedia. From the page Notability "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." I would think by that definition and the links that have been provided on this talk page as well as the ones in the article that the tag for deletion is "inappropriate" and was not done as "a last resort." Rlcomstock3 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) — Rlcomstock3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I totally adhere to the previous comment. Plus, the reasons offered for deletion appear to be biased. Looks more like a not so hidden attempt on censorship. Absolutely nobody will be affected if the entry remains, while there is much to lose the other way round. --Sandy98 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC) — Sandy98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note about the above !vote: clear single-purpose account. (Not to mention that cries of censorship are never very useful.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is the preceeding comment by Rlcomstock3. Right now, Wallach2008 is the only user suggesting this be kept that has made edits outwith this AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is written at User:Lkcl (one of major contributors to pyjamas article) that he/she is Luke Leighton who is one of pyjamas developers. According to one of references provided by myself above Luke Leighton gave several talks at Linux 2008 Conference and Workshop on pyjamas. I would like to have a comment of User:Lkcl/Luke Leighton in this discussion. ... It's a little bit embarrassing that Sandy98 and Shellmich seemed to be created only to defend pyjamas...--Wallach2008 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Politizer's comment above. User:Lkcl, posting from an IP, stated on my talk page that he did not know of any independent references for the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I am Sandy98, my real name is Ernesto Savoretti, and I'm stating this in order to try to clarify a couple of issues. In the first place, although it's true that my only contributions since I registered are related to Pyjamas software, that does by no way mean its my only interest. In fact, I made a couple of contributions before I registered (i.e. the name of mod_wsgi author in the corresponding article, date and IP of modification can be checked) but even if Pyjamas was my only interest, it's as legitimate as any, so I don't see the point in Politizer objection, unless he's trying to make my point on censorship.
  Second: Chris, do you try to link IPs to identities so as to sustain arguments?
  All of this seems very narrow-minded to me, I really thought Wikipedia was all about spreading knowledge, not raising sterile issues. At least, that's how I see it. Ernesto Savoretti (talk)
Keep. I just cannot see how how retention of factual information on widely distributed free Linux software in any way can damage the reputation or otherwise lower the value of Wikipedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are some sources of unknown reliablity noted above, but most of the 'keep' arguments seem to be ILIKEIT or HARMLESS. I don't see too much source material on web searches. Nothing on google news. Nothing on google books. Likely nothing on google scholar. Plenty of google web hits, though I have no means to determine which of those may actually be a 'source' on the subject. The first page doesn't look promising, with most of the top links download mirrors. Protonk (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't TatumInteractive Mind Tree Ajax Magazine and Ajaxian support notability via search engine test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.131.211.114 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.