Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERC (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   no consensus. The linux.com article indeed is more than non-trivial coverage but unfortunately for the keep !votes, this cannot suffice on its own. As such, there currently is no consensus between those who think notability exists and those who make (somewhat templated) "non notable"-delete !votes. A merge/redirect should be discussed though if further expansion is not possible. Regards  So Why  08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ERC (IRC client)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software subject that was declined speedy deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and list in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. We don't seem to have a List of Emacs packages article; it's not significant enough to mention in Emacs. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my opinion this is CSD A7 material: no notability is asserted because it is not notable to begin with, as it lacks non-trivial coverage from any sort of reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: I can find significant coverage for this software, where's the problem? It helps to search for Emacs IRC client. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Swedish Google search is not an indicator of notability at all. Not in the least.  Find and cite non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, please.  Or this will be deleted.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, Google search is no indicator and unsourced software article should be deleted. What is your point? Have you used the help I gave to investigate the subject? The nominator failed to show compelling reasons for deletion and mass-nominates IRC related articles. So do you fail to bring forward even a single piece of evidence that would diminish the references in the article, btw you refer to A7 which does not apply to software articles. This has been discussed yesterday in other Afd-nomintations you were involved . Could you please update your vote and explain your point of view more detailed? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability is asserted - the article itself should assert why it is more notable than the rnk and file of IRC software, seeing as IRC software is not inherently notable. A wide range of sources provide verification of the subject's claim to notability and are not the notability in and of themselves.  (You could get around the issue by adding the adjective "widely-discussed" to the article and then using your sources to support it.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are several references of third-party coverage added to the article, including a linux.com article. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial. JBsupreme (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero significant non trivial coverage in reliable sources.  Triplestop  x3  22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge/Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. The Linux.com article is a valid source per WP:RS and I think it goes a long way towards establishing notability for this subject. If the article is to remain a sub-stub however, it would seem to be more appropriate to simply add any relevant information to the tables in the comparison article and redirect there as we already do for many other clients. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The reviews count as significant coverage. If it wasn't notable, they'd not mention it at all.  Sourceforge says it had 11,072 downloads, I think that just for the most recent build though.  No way to tell how many people have downloaded older builders.  The software has been out since 2001.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Linux.com source found by Tothwolf is enough to indicate notability and allows this article to pass WP:V. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found since nomination. --Milowent (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which sources? The review in Linux.com or the download counter on Sourceforge?  These so-called "sources" are laughable. :(  JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * JBsupreme, worse case scenario we should" "[k eep per WP:IAR as this article clearly is improving the quality of Wikipedia.]" ;) However, in all seriousness, I cannot see what is wrong with the review from Linux.com. It provides enough coverage about ERC (three paragraphs of information) to verify the information in the article. Per Tothwolf, I would not object to a merge to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * JBsupreme, given the disruption you and Miami33139 willfully created as a group (and appeared to be enjoying whilst doing so) that was extremely well documented on AN/I (to the point where it required its own subpage), your continued false assertions are unlikely to do you any good at all here. You and Miami33139 may have thought you would mass-AfD articles to "get back at Tothwolf for getting other articles kept at AfD etc" but the only thing you managed to accomplish is to upset lots of other community members and bring the spotlight upon yourselves.
 * Tothwolf your constant personal attacks are sickening. Put a sock in it, please.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 8 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.