Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH


 * 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.  So Why  12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PIRCH

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable IRC client that has no sources or references. 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) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on you, and everyone here at AFD, to look for sources yourself. Otherwise you have no way of knowing, and thus no real grounds for claiming, whether something is notable or not. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't prove a negative is drilled into debate students in high shool. Your lengthy history on Wikipedia may skewer your view of citation necessity but Wikipedia went to a strict sourcing policy many years ago. Thus, debate students also get drilled on the burden of proving their assertions - in this case, for notability. The third sentence is also strict: Wikipedia should not be the biggest, best, primary, and highly search-engine ranked place for information about products. Promoting products, even free ones, is antithetical to Wikipedian ideals. Miami33139 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're raising red herrings. You're required to look for sources yourself, to put deletion policy into action.  Policy is amply clear on this: attempts to find sources must have failed.  If you don't make the attempt in the first place, you cannot truthfully state that you have failed.  No amount of wikilawyering or very silly ad hominems on your part (I'll leave others to clue you in on the depth of the foolishness here.) excuses you this burden.  Please put deletion policy into practice properly.  AFD is not a big stick for editors to idly sit by themselves and beat other people into doing work with. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are over 300,000 articles that have no references. Most of these were made before that was added to the suggested guidelines.  You should search for references nominating something for deletion.  A quick search for Google news for "PIRCH" and "IRC" found plenty of results, including CNN saying it was a "nice Windows client."  Took but a few seconds to search.  Google books for "PIRCH" and "IRC" and there are 140 results.   D r e a m Focus  01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Delete) - You made that argument on a debate yesterday, UncleG, and if you've answered my rebuttal of it I haven't seen it. We're only able to assess the article as it currently stands, not the article it may possibly be some day if maybe someone finds some sources that maybe exist.  Currently, there's nothing in the article that meets WP:N.  If someone feels that the article should be kept, they're welcome to improve the article to pass WP:N and then draw to our attention that we may wish to re-consider our position on the basis of the changes.  If your claim that we should be looking for additional sources before making an assessment is based on a policy, I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected by having the relevant policy drawn to my attention.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Uncle G is referring to WP:BEFORE, which states that deletion isn't for cleanup. (Ie, if an article can be fixed, it should be, rather than deleted). I typically interpret that as saying that nom's should make at least a cursory effort to find sources. Obviously one can't prove a negative, but some effort should be undertaken. -- B figura (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more than just that. Its policy from practically day one, and standard operating procedure for Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bfigura for pointing me to that policy! The relevant passage is "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist," which strictly speaking applies to the nominator, but the spirit of which would appear to apply to everyone.  I'll take that on board! Now that that's been said, I've made a good faith seach for sources and can find none that assert the subject's notability.  So, still, delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are not doing this, then you are no help, and no use, to Wikipedia and to AFD, because this is what they both require, and are making zero contribution to the process. Doing the legwork onesself has been standard practice since the very first days of the Verifiability policy, and has been part of policy ever since.  It's discussed in many places.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage.  Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, once it comes to AFD, I'd say the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources. At any rate, there are some news stories about PIRCH. I guess someone could flesh out an article with them... but I never liked PIRCH very much personally... and it's unclear to me that they really constitute the level of coverage needed to justify an article. Any PIRCH fans have a few hours to kill? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the burden is for everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Chill is correct. The burden is on everyone, to severally and independently look for sources, so that the right conclusion can be reliably reached.  And that includes nominators.  A no-effort nomination doesn't actually demonstrate lack of notability, since it cannot be tructhfully said that something isn't notable if one hasn't expended the effort to find out.  Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it was a lazy nomination, but ultimately, sufficient sources need to be found by someone or the article will get deleted. The nominator committed a faux pas, fine, but I don't think you're seriously suggested we should keep the article just because of that, that would be silly. It's at AFD now, people are looking for sufficient sources and can't find them... it doesn't really matter that it was lazy nomination, people who want this article kept need to find sources. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It very much does matter. This issue has been to RFC before now.  We neither want nor need bad nominations.  We want good nominations, that are founded in policy, where the nominator has done the necessary legwork and put policy into practice.  And the onus for doing legwork is not on "people who want this article kept".  That's a self-serving excuse for the lack of effort that you are talking about.  The onus is, as stated, on everyone.  No-effort rationales and sheep voting do not help either Wikipedia or AFD.  People who want either outcome have the burden of looking for sources themselves.  It's the only way that a good result, that we can have confidence in being the right one, can be obtained.  Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't deny it was a bad nomination... I just don't see what continuing to harp on it will accomplish. I looked for sources, but haven't come to a conclusion either way yet on this article. I think we should be debating the quality of the sources, not whether or not it was a good nomination... we agreed right off the bat that it wasn't. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are the sources that Sancho M. found, most of them seem to deal with exploits, vulnerabilities, or updates. I didn't see multiple independent reliable sources that discussed the software in a substantial way. (The closest I found were a review or two of the software, which didn't seem to be the same thing). B figura  (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tangent (I looked at the news sources too, agreed, they were trivial). 90% of reviews are crap for determining notability. 90%, because there are exceptional review sources. If we accepted reviews as evidence of notability then every flavor or Rice-a-Roni in Wal•Mart would have a Wikipedia article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep FUTON bias

Joe Chill, this is what you and I were talking about yesterday. Please keep that in mind. Miami33139, this has gone beyond absurd. You are willfully violating so many of Wikipedia's founding principles with these actions that I don't even know where to begin to address it all. It needs to stop right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone with an Amazon account can read the two pages (not a chapter!) you are presenting, as well as the table of contents and index which show usage of this client. The author used six different clients for various examples in his book. Does that instantly makes all six of these clients independently notable? Does the amount the author devotes to this specific client make it notable? I say it it helpful to the notability claim, but not any sort of judo that instantly declares this obviously notable. Miami33139 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While this is a good reference, I'm not sure that a page or so of mention in a textbook meets the multiple independent source standard. I'll reconsider if more sources are found, of course. -- B figura (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the standard is higher than merely having sources which assert that it exists and that it's an IRC client? Surely the sources have to assert notability, or discuss it in such depth and quantity as to make it notable through the attention it's been given? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep yes, If they're notable enough to use as examples in a standard textbook by a responsible publisher, then they are notable.  the subject does not have to be "obviously notable," the requirement for it to have a Wikipedia article  is merely notable.  It would of course help to find additional sources, as it always does.  DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No references are given in this article. It is a sub-stub with a picture. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is this software not "obviously notable" it isn't non-obviously notable either.  See that lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications?  Yeah, that's right.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not participate in this discussion. PIRCH is among the most popular IRC clients. I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Dig, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia . 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on discussion to date, its clear nomination was half-assed.  There appear to be sources out there. --Milowent (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Last version was released in 1998, so of course the Google sourcing will be iffy these days. As the sources I just linked on the talk page show, PIRCH was frequently listed in published books along with mIrc in lists of Windows irc clients -- sometimes even before it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Being listed in lists is not exactly "non-trivial coverage" is it. JBsupreme (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's references out there if you try hard enough to find them; besides, it's an important historical IRC client. SMC (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on Google books results and Google news.  D r e a m Focus  01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do any of the Google books results or Google news hits you refer to amount to "non-trivial coverage"? JBsupreme (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones currently used in the article certainly do. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:19, 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.