Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konversation


 * 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   delete. In closing this discussion, I have to weigh the arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, as required by WP:DGFA. This leads me to discount or take into account only very lightly all "keep" opinions for the following reasons: According to our notability guideline, WP:N, a subject has a dedicated article if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The "delete" opinions claim that the subject lacks such coverage, a reasonable presumption given the lack of reliable independent sources cited in the article. The "keep" opinions largely do not address this issue, instead extolling the product's alleged popularity or other merits, but these characteristics are not relevant in the light of WP:N. To the extent the "keep" opinions do address the sourcing issue, they do so unpersuasively, linking generally to Google search results, which are not sources of the sort required by WP:N. Only Yarcanox links to two specific works, but limits coverage to one sentence and a screenshot, and  merely mentions the subject by way of example. That is manifestly not the sort of coverage that "addresses the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:GNG.  Sandstein  19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Konversation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE. Yet another NN chat client. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I know this client might not be that well-known to Windows users. But on Linux, Konversation is _the_ client for KDE (if you remember, KDE and Gnome are the two big desktop environments for Linux). Even if it isn't talked as much about as e.g. kvirc (most likely because kvirc is also popular amongst Windows users), it's certainly more popular on Linux.Yarcanox (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yarcanox, you sound like you know this material! Please add multiple, reliable sources, independent of the subject to the article. It isn't about our personal knowledge but what documentation we can take from the rest of the world. The statement that this is a well-known client must be verified, not our opinions. If you know how to demonstrate this from good, reliable sources, please provide them. Miami33139 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly I have no print sources. I can just tell Konversation is shipped with all big distributions, the channel is quite crowded and the web (for you that's probably not really notable) has many references. And it's simply one of the advanced clients and not just some of those ultra simple ones or a some-months-old project. All I can do is help the article gets better with web sources and state that I personally have the impression it is pretty well-known amongst KDE users and also quite popular. Dream Focus seems to have found some traces of notable sources though (see below). I have to admit my statement sounded a bit more objective and funded than it actually is. Yarcanox (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Print sources found via google books (now finally backing up my previous keep). "The Business Guide to Free Information Technology" by Tim Jowers and Contributors explains IRC to business people as a means for support. For that, it picks Konversation as an example chat client, page 35. "Linux: the complete reference" by Richard Petersen lists XChat, naim and Konversation as IRC client examples (page 304) . There are more references, but those are the first interesting ones I found. Yarcanox (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the O'Reilly book may also have some coverage on this client but I do not have a copy on hand to check right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching for the name plus the word "Linux" shows it is mentioned in plenty of books. And we really should leave any Linux articles to the people that use Linux, and can thus be better at determining what is commonly seen and what isn't.   D r e a m Focus  03:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Behind XChat, Konversation is one of the most popular GUI clients for KDE on the Linux family of operating systems. A suitable Google books search is: --Tothwolf (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As say above, Konversation is the most popular and used irc client in KDE, every major distro comes with Konversation, like openSUSE, Mandriva, Kubuntu. --KDesk (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 125% Keep As per above, Konversation is, indeed, one of most popularIRC client. In fact, it had also shown on the top list in searches. This gives sufficient proof that Konversation is really well-known, and most probably, a highly-used IRC chat client. --Mark Chung (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As of late, development on this project has been quite intensive and the first stable release of its port to qt4/kde4 is nearly complete (v1.2). As has been mentioned, Konversation has been the official irc client of the kde project, and a very robust and widely used version has exists for Kde3. As far as software which has a Wikipedia article, Konversation is far from the least noteworthy. I will try to find some suitable sources when I have some time. This article is very outdated and requires expansion. Ormaaj (talk) 11:42, 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.