Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandion (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 delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[Pandion (software)]]=

:{{la|Pandion (software)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Pandion (software)}})

Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG I failed to find any indications of notability in the wild. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Article is about an XMPP / Jabber client. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought that was pretty obvious from the article itself... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it wasn't obvious when I was looking at the list of today's AfDs. Now it is. :D - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete: I found zero notability. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Regardless of personal experience, regarding notability, I found the following websites discussing pandion, one way or another:

:* [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pandion/ SourceForge pandion page]. I think we can consider this as a reliable source as it includes third-party opinions on the software, but I may be wrong.

:* [http://alternativeto.net/software/pandion/ Alternative To] website.

:* [http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/ XMPP clients list].

:In addition, Wikipedia refers to it, but, as known, it cannot be considered 'reliable source': Wikipedia article on instant messaging client comparison. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

::All of this can't be used for WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT purposes. (1) is primary source with third-party comments that can't be used for anything per WP:SPS, (2) is also prohibited by WP:SPS and is an indiscriminate directory (though very incomplete) and (3) is also indiscriminate directory. Effectively, these links prove the existence, not notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Close to zero notability. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not found reliable sources to suggest this subject is notable. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:28, 21 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.