Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colloquy (IRC client)


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Colloquy (IRC client)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable software application which fails GNG. JBsupreme ( talk ) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: One minute of Googling brought up this article from Ars Technica, a reputable source, describing Colloquy as "a heavyweight in the Mac OS X IRC space" -- not to mention a whole ton of how-to-use-it tutorials produced by third parties, which seems like a pretty decent metric of notability for an IRC client. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, sorry, should be "reviews and how-to-use-it tutorials." Jd4v15 (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ars Technica reference is insignificant availability announcement. Miami33139 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an availability announcement, in a well-known and respected third-party source, of a new version of "a heavyweight in the Mac OS X IRC space." Clearly the folks at Ars Technica think Colloquy is notable.  How is that insignificant? Jd4v15 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mobile Colloquy also has a loooooooooooong review in Ars Technica, so you should have guessed that the full fledged OS X client itself has more coverage, like easy, peasy, clicky linky at the AfDy toppy booky coveragy:  Probably the most notable OS X IRC client based on  and . Obviously also has articles on the usual mac review sites,, , etc. Pcap  ping  22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or Speedy keep. This is a widely used, well-known, and obviously notable software product.  Heck, I use it myself as it is probably the most widely used OSX IRC program.  This is one of those nominations that is far past the far side of absurd, and probably openly bad-faith. The "Delete" !votes are all by the "usual suspects" who automatically vote to delete FOSS articles, regardless of overwhelming and obvious notability. LotLE × talk  22:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nomination. andyzweb (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG, the reason for the nomination, demands significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Pcap points to a number of different how-to-use-a-Mac books that discuss Colloquy in depth.  That alone satisfies GNG criteria, in my opinion; if you disagree, would you mind explaining why in more detail?  (Sorry to harp on this, I just honestly don't see how the article fails GNG.) Jd4v15 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - one of the most notable and popular IRC clients for the Mac. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the topic is notable. Time here would be better spent debating improving the article, e.g. which sources to add. Besides the books mentioned above, here are two signed articles in professional news sources posted online: signed post from a professional online news source, which says "One of the most popular open source IRC clients for the Mac" and goes on to talk about the mobile version and signed post in a source by the makers of Macworld (magazine). Versiontracker shows a high rating and nearly 50,000 downloads on their site. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, ostatic.com is owned by IDG (look at the bottom of any page there), and Lisa Hoover is a contributor to other well-know sites . Pcap ping  18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - per LotLE. appleinsider.com "OS X's most popular IRC client". ErikHaugen (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There may be more book mentions here to add to all the other links already referenced. A major player in a small niche. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom feels pointy, but notability questions have been met by the other participants above riffic (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2010 (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.