Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bersirc


 * 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   no consensus. Keep !votes are convincing that this information should not be removed from the encyclopedia although delete !votes correctly point out that it currently lacks significant coverage. As such, consensus is not reach, although Tothwolf's merge proposal should be considered at the appropriate talk pages. Regards  So Why  12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bersirc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was declined as a CSD nomination. This software is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and has no references. A search for references finds links that say it exists, but not coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability; really could have been speedied under A7. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Nyttend that this could and should have been CSD A7'd, hence the original nomination, but apparently software gets a free pass on that.  So let's delete it the old fashioned way for failing any relevant notability standard.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I click the link to search for it in News, and all sorts of results pop up. refers to it as "highly acclaimed software package Bersirc".  Clicking on Google Books and Scholar both show it mentioned in various publications.  Most results aren't in English though.  With 40 thousand Google hits, its hard to sift through everything and find reliable sources, but surely some exist.   D r e a m Focus  11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found nothing to show this is notable. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Print sources in "Porters: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" by Icon Group International, Inc. page 238, "IRC hacks" by Paul Mutton page 10 - the first one seems quite notable, the second one is just a small note but still, it is there. See also what Dream Focus said above. Yarcanox (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Webster's Quotations book isn't usable, it reprints Wikipedia material. The note in IRC hacks we can certainly use as a reference in the Comparison article but I don't think it is enough by itself for a standalone article. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (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.