Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of instant messaging clients


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 09:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of instant messaging clients
I think that we shouldn't have this on Wikipedia. I think it's unencyclopedic and just doesn't belong here. While it is useful, this belongs on a specific website devoted to IMs, not Wikipedia  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Comparison articles are the BEST! I think whoever disagrees doesn't belong here at Wikipedia, "the free source for information and knowledge." -signed as "if it's good, keep it" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.133.100 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep We have many other "comparison" articles, and I don't think this one is any worse than those I've seen in the past. There's little if any OR (contrary to the article's tagging), all of the info is verifiable, and the page contains useful encyclopedic content. -- Kicking222 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-Informative, useful, and in line with other comparison articles. I fail to see exactly what is unencyclopedic about it. —Dylan Lake 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kicking222 - all the contents are verifiable. Quack 688 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found several of these software comparison articles useful, factual and neutral - they use easily verifiable facts and specifications, without drawing a conclusion or "rating" the subjects, so no OR involved. --Canley 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP! Hi, I just found this amazing article and saw that it was foolishly nominated for delete by some random runescape player as noted on the history thingy. I 100000% agree with everything the above smart people have stated. There is no reason to delete this. Policies need to be change to keep up w/ the times. Plus, I hear there is a IAR policy here at wikipedia. As a common user of wikipedia, I speak for the average person-- keep it or we leave!
 * Comment Excuse me, just because I'm some "random" RuneScape player doesn't mean I just go around for fun nominating articles for AfD. I don't know, I guess my opinion has changed with all these reasons.  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if this was made by the same person above, but regarding your comment "I think whoever disagrees doesn't belong here at Wikipedia", um, so I should be kicked out of Wikipedia because I disagree with something? That's like saying if you don't like Jimbo Wales then you can't join. I'm confused -  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable, useful, encyclopedic. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Everyone else has pretty much covered the reasons. Chickencha 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Okay, assuming that the linked to articles are sourced ok. I'm not a fan of tables or comparison charts, but I guess this is a kind of list in essence. Bwithh 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP If this article was deleted, then all the other "comparison" articles would be as well. As long as all the information is kept up to date and organized, it should stay. It has a lot of useful information and is NPOV. --71.250.49.200 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cannot see any reason to delete this, while keeping it would benefit readers of our encyclopedia.  Yamaguchi先生 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's useful! --h2g2bob 12:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Being useful isn't a valid reason for an article to not be deleted -  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's useful, and encyclopedic. it has NPOV, which is good. it's quite useful for the end user deciding over which messenger program to use. Ccmolik 23:22, 14 January 2007 (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.