Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaltalkScene

: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The result was withdrawn. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[PaltalkScene]]=

:{{la|PaltalkScene}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|PaltalkScene}})

No indications of notability. PROD declined with edit summary: "Objecting to deletion. Please define 'non notable software'. Paltalk is both a service an software to access the service. It generally has 80k or so online users at a time." There is a lot of commercial promotion coverage on the net and I only found some news and reviews all coming from PC World's Ian Harac. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Not all software needs to be documented on Wikipedia. I think the patent section is sufficiently notable but this should be under the company's page if at all. Deleting the deletion template was bad form, but it was from an IP so they probably didn't know what they were doing. Looking at the log, this page looks to be a target for vandalism and I am confused why Paltalk redirects to PaltalkScene, when there is only one fleeting mention of PaltalkScene in the article. All in all, this page reads more like advertising that an article. --Carbon Rodney 12:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also note, that the patent side has some news coverage, as the company tried hard to promote itself suing everybody it ever heard of. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:Strikeout: My mistake, they deleted the prod not the afd tag.--Carbon Rodney 07:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: Per these books - [http://books.google.com/books?id=JLpKA6JA5TAC&pg=PA115&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xaELT9LeDYyqsAKY0LH_BQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Paltalk&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=V_garird4D8C&pg=PA61&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UaILT4HpEOiysALG6oGOBg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Paltalk&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=Zi2m0c_tZIgC&pg=PA73&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UaILT4HpEOiysALG6oGOBg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=Paltalk&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=pW9RAAAAYAAJ&q=Paltalk&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=waILT_ehLaX_sQLOs638BQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwADgU], [http://books.google.com/books?id=f_xznHf9zFAC&pg=PA135&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D6MLT4zxB-n4sQKE0NzdBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=Paltalk&f=false], Newsweek - [http://books.google.com/books?id=zN4eAQAAMAAJ&q=Paltalk&dq=Paltalk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xaELT9LeDYyqsAKY0LH_BQ&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ], and [http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326621,00.asp PC Magazine]. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Refs 1-5: focus is far away from instant messaging. These prove that PalTalk exists and is used, but that is true for every IM client out there, not a good reason for inclusion. Ref 6 (for what I can get from the snippet) disusses the Paltalk as a commercial entity with only trivial mention of software. Ref 7 — they have such article on nearly every IM client. See their links at the bottom for a threshold of coverage. There is a real problem with IMs: every general public IM client has a huge amount of coverage, as people write on how they use it. Given that instant messaging is a highly used service, we have to choose to either demand more for establishing IM software's notability or include just everything. I think we should require some sources that would be strictly focused on IM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I just looked through PC Magazine directory of videoconferencing software reviews (see a link above the review). Even the way they organize it shows their attempt at building an indiscriminate collection of software with each item reviewed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • PC Magazine is a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It is indeed reliable, but the fact that it builds indiscriminate collection of videoconferencing software reviews doesn't allow us to use it for the purpose of determining notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Indiscriminate collection? That's nonsense. In software AfDs, barely of them have coverage with this website. And if they do, there is usually more coverage available like in this case as I proved down below. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:N requires 'significant coverage'. Only the first book and PC Magazine mention Paltalk by more than its name. The PC Magazine review has been posted by four Facebook users and one twitter account. And, I'm not surprised the original author left two those sources out as neither covers Paltalk in nearly as positive light as its Wikipedia article does.--Carbon Rodney 09:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it isn't significant coverage. I also don't see how the sources only refer to it as just its name. So you're saying that each source only says "Paltalk" in relation to it? SL93 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm... let me try to provide clearer reasoning for why I think 5 of those 7 aren't significant coverage. For example, the second book you found in that search (Women Warriors for Allah) is not about Paltalk and it only mentions the word 'Paltalk' three times on one page: when discussing how Um Yussef communicated with other Muslim women using the software. WP:N says "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" so the PC Magazine review not only provides significant coverage by covering Paltalk in detail but it is also the subject of the PC Magazine article. Women Warriors for Allah is a 300-page book about the difficulties Muslim women in the Netherlands that only provides a trivial mention of Paltalk and is therefore not significant coverage. Similarly, the PC Magazine article isn't significant coverage of David Duchovny, despite mentioning his name in passing as it doesn't provide a detailed description of him.--Carbon Rodney 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I removed the original deletion notice because of this phrase in it, which I followed: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." I objected, removed the message as per the directive and gave a reason. If that message means something else it should have said so. If you remove Paltalk you should remove Yahoo Messenger and every other chat room program from wiki, including a lot of software titles. Currently Paltalk is perhaps the best chat room service around. Yahoo used to be good but years ago became overrun with bots. I don't know that media coverage should be a measure of notability as media is poor in covering the internet, and especially poor in covering chat rooms. Paltalkscene is the name of the client that accesses the chat service, but most people use the name of the service for the name of the client which is why I'm guessing why Paltalk comes to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.142.112 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF? The reasons you state are pretty convincing for including PalTalk in some list, not for a separate article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment': [http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/4921/1/ Linux Planet]. SL93 (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Some of you may have heard of PalTalk, though diehard Linux fans may not." Good implication of notability... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, 4 pages of significant coverage does show notability. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In hundreds of AfD debates that I participated in, I never came across someone that said that PC Magazine does not show notability and that 4 pages does not show notability. Even a negative comment with 4 pages shows notability just like a negative review. Not to mention a [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=DSNB&d_place=DSNB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F74B1AC731B2649&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM 598 word article] that is only about Paltalk. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Scholarly articles - [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1497330] and [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1497330]. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [http://www.speechtechmag.com/Articles/News/News-Feature/Paltalk-Expands-Videoconferencing-to-Thousands-at-Once-40239.aspx] - "Online community pulled out all the stops in a multimedia conference involving author Stephen King." "According to Gore, the application is already gaining momentum. It was only launched in September, and has already featured guests like R&B sensation JoJo; rock icon Slash, formerly of the band Guns ‘n’ Roses; Jimmy Jean-Louis and Jack Coleman from the NBC-TV series Heroes; actor Rex Lee from HBO’s Entourage; filmmaker John Waters; actress and comedian Amy Sedaris; actor Chevy Chase; actor and comedian Richard Belzer; musician Paul Shaffer; and indie band BitterSweet." It's odd to compare this to all videoconferencing software. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Used for [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502684_162-4903105-502684.html military preparations]. This is more than regular people using it. It is notable people and groups that are using it which are also reported in articles. How many videoconferencing software has that many notable guests and are used for military sessions? SL93 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, given fairly large amount of notable living people, amount of military sessions and the other types of possible important uses of videoconferencing... probably all of them. Though the rest of links altogether is pretty convincing. BTW, was ever any IM client article deleted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Added to 4 pages of a review, a 598 word article also, and 2 peer reviewed scholarly articles. I really doubt that all of them have received everything combined. Take a look at Digsby for example. I only found a PC Magazine review which does not hold up if that is all there is. I don't know how many have been deleted, but if there is one thing that Digsby shows - not all IM clients are like this. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 11 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.