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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yakitychat[edit]

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

New open source project - no notability. 15 google hits but nothing to establish notability. Just released and no indication that anyone uses it. noq (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article may be premature; if the software gains notability through coverage in reliable sources, or through widespread use (on the order of millions of documented users), then an article might be appropriate. But there is no evidence to show that the project currently meets our notability guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable (yet?). It may be interesting, even potentially successful, but that's not the criterion for acceptance as a Wikipedia article. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - delete it by all means but it is a new protocol and a demonstration which is available to all bsd etc. Can you assure me I can work on the article offline until you people just wipe it? Seems really exclusive so far - wikipedia. I thought it was cool to contribute - I got about an hour into editing until you lot just say delete - seems ludicrous and mean. Give us at least a few days to shape up... How about some suggestions or questions to help, rather than a 'delete quick, this is not listed on google yet'... etc. thanks.

btw, there is a robot.txt that denies a google listing, we are using this on some API documents - cause google is misleading. Can you please stop judging people on google results - use your brains first, ie. read and understand the stuff, but then again - I will give up faster than you probably, satisfied? Questions / suggestions much preferred - thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgeeves (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not taking it so personally and overreacting. If you cannot do that at first, then none of us can help you. MuZemike 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/ Fair comment. But, perhaps an over reaction will at least communicate the notion that a group deciding to 'delete', before giving a fair go at editing, is intimidating and unhelpful. Personally, I have not seen any opinion based on anything other than google hits and 'debated' opinions about what 'meets our guidelines.'

So, I'll let it go now and come back when I have more time to contribute, cheers for your speedy response nevertheless. I should note that after taking this to my programmer community there was a significant amount of criticism of this wiki, and some pretty (unhelpful) comparisons to those that like to control contributions so vigorously. This seems revealing to me, although certainly my own opinion, but it is not just the English language version, so I presume it is likely a culture has sprung up inside wiki-p. I guess at some point there will be a notable entry describing the phenomenon that is the wiki-pedia self appointment to the contributors resistance committee, or thereabouts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.246.5 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I accept all judgements, and agree with most of them for now. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.246.5 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 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.