Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyChess

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 - no clear consensus, default outcome. Manning (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PyChess

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

Article tagged back in 2009 with notability concerns, and has no improvement since then. Does not cite a single reliable secondary source. Unless someone can find some significant coverage soon, I propose deletion per our core WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a lot of new stuff to this article recently. It now cites 9 different sources. 7 of them independent. I can add more improvement to the textual quality in the coming days. --Thomasda (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pychess.org, gnomedesktop.org code.google.com and live.gnome are primary sources. bobthegnome.blogspot, inf.sgsp.edu.pl and ohloh.net are not reliable publications. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. The kind of thing I'd be looking for is a full review or feature in a chess or linux publication. Chess magazine reviews sometimes pop up on Google Books, but in this case I couldn't track anything down. Marasmusine (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is mentioned in a Chess magazine. It is still more in the Hobby league than the professional. The Wikipedia link was the best source I could find for the The Trophees du Libre award, but I thought winning a 3.000 euro award was worth mentioning. Regarding reviews, I know about

Would any of those be good enough as reliable secondary sources? --Thomasda (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, these links don't strike me as being reliable sources. The reason I say this is that they are either wikis, or self-published sites. We do have a caveat with such sites, in that if the author can be shown to be an "established expert" (i.e. someone with a solid publication history) then their work can potentially be usable. I'll try to look into it. Marasmusine (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Only Howtogeek seams to be non personal, non wiki. Thomasda (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine, I think a software wins an award for the Trophées du Logiciel Libre is relevant enough. Videos about event [1] and Interview of Thomas Dybdahl, leader of "Pychess" software during the Trophées du Libre 2009 [2]. Cheers, LeonardoG (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable third-party sources have reported on this event, that will convince me. The award itself needs to be notable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. There seams to be mostly French and German reports on the event. However some of them are from fairly major publications like Linux Magazin and Pro Linux:

Thomasda (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo, this is not about who "deserves" what. It is simply about having correct sources for an article. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is thin on the ground, but between this review and this article documenting its "Trophées du Libre Soissons" win, I'm going to say we should hang onto it. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So here comes grumpy old Marasmusine again. Just to note that the 01net review is actually a publisher's description. At the moment I'm trying to decide on the reliability (by our standards: it's self published) of pro-linux.de. Linux-magazine.de does look usable, though. We'll see what others think. Marasmusine (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
01net: oh, geez, okay. Good catch. I guess I haven't learned to identify marcomm if it's in French. What do you think of this source? Re "grumpy old Maramusine": hey, I have never once accused you of Literally Deleting MUD History From The Entire Internet ZOMG. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is/was a concern but based on the sources found above, it seems the article will be improving enough to be kept.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (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.