Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parley (software) (2nd nomination)

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. User:LavaSnake, let me know if you want me to move the contents into your sandbox. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parley (software)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about apparently non-notable software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. The article was recently recreated after being deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (advertising). - Mr X 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated this page to try to provide useful information and links on the KDE Parley program. Could you please help me improve this page so it meets the guidelines? LavaSnake (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would be happy to help. Can you point me to some reliable sources that show that this software is notable enough to merit having an article in the world's most prominent encyclopedia? - Mr X 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to provide that by referencing it's listing on KDE-Apps.org which includes a short review and comments. KDE-Apps.org is an independent site and one of the most popular lists of apps for KDE. Would these sources help?

https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/natty/parley/
http://linuxappfinder.com/package/kvoctrain

Thanks for your help! LavaSnake (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closely affiliated sources and the software developer's website are not sufficiently good sources for establishing notability. Please read WP:RS and WP:N. Notability is usually established by media or scholarly coverage by third party sources such as newspapers, magazines, journals, books, news web sites, and some blogs. For example, if there were a CNET or Linux Journal article on the software, that would establish a level of notability. A mere mention is not enough. - Mr X 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I'll try to find a review or article on it then. LavaSnake (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article such as this one help support the Parley's notablity? LavaSnake (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources and improvements to the article which should fix the issues with notability and third party sources. Can I now remove the deletion notice and the tags on notability and third party sources? Thank you! LavaSnake (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like you've added one source to a website called Linux Links. It seems to be merely a description of features, not a review or an analysis of the software. There's no author listed and no evidence that the site is under editorial control, or is even authoritative on the subject. Did you read the guidelines that I provided above?

You can not remove the deletion notice. An uninvolved admin will assess consensus after enough people have commented in this discussion. Please read the guide to deletion. - Mr X 16:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them and that source is a little weak, but since this software is in development I've had a hard time finding normal reviews on it. I also did look through that site before adding it and it seemed to have a lot of good information on Linux apps. Thank you for helping me with this and clearing up my confusion about the deletion notice; I'm new to this and still trying to learn how it all works. What would be the best way to show the notability of this program if I can't find any better sources? Thanks again! LavaSnake (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be as straightforward as possible: If there are no better sources then the software is simply not notable, at least not yet. You may try contacting some magazine editors to see if they will write about it. You might even be able to submit a bylined article. Magazines love free content. - Mr X 16:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Would it be best to move this page to my sandbox until I can find or write a good source for it? If so then what you be the best way to tell you when it's ready to be reviewed again? LavaSnake (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could be moved to your sandbox after this discussion, or it could be WP:REFUNDED. - Mr X 13:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since sources can not be found to show this program's notability I'd like to go ahead and move it to my sandbox and delete the public copy. What is the best way to go about doing that?LavaSnake (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this article clearly fails WP:NSOFTWARE; it has absolutely no notability whatsoever. The KDe-Apps.org is NOT a secondary source. It's a listing site you can post programs on, as the author of the software did, this is identical to being a clone of the primary source. The linuxlinks.com is literally a directory site that copied the description verbatim. All sources listed, other than the primary source, are for software listing/directories, where the description is a verbatim copy of the software description from the primary source unworthy and has no value on wikipedia. Numerous ¹ ² google search. Not only there are absolutely no secondary sources, the additional references are a 100% verbatim copy of the primary source with absolutely nothing constructive added (see WP:RELY). --CyberXRef^talk 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search for 'parley' and for 'parley +kde' did not reveal any such coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2013 (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.