Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pork 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   delete. Valley2 city ‽ 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pork client

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This contested PROD is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and a search for references does not show significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC) --Tothwolf (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination: somebody wrote an IRC client. Though its loss will result in the removal of these lines:  A user will begin a session of pork by invoking it on the command line. % pork  which I find irresistable for some reason. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like today is the day of Judgement for these random irc clients. Delete for lack of notability. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having used pork, it is a good client, but of course, that's WP:ILIKEIT.  This is nothing of the caliber of Xchat or mIRC, it is pretty much yet another CLI client.  Beyond that, with nothing but a little documentation, it won't stand here.  Unfortunately. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * delete nothing to indicate notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--were the members of the bacon cabal informed of this AfD? User:ChildofMidnight, User:Kelapstick, and User:Bongomatic are interested, I'm sure, and I don't know if Wikipedia's Automatic Bacon-Related Article Deletion Bot is working properly. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, being that pigs - which pork is derived from - are partially made of bacon, I accordingly see this being partially relevant to their interests. =) Better inform 'em. (Or would that be partially inform?....) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bacon and pork come from the same animal? Right, some magical animal. 1 --kelapstick (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oink. And by oink, I mean delete.  And by delete I mean burn it with fire as this isn't notable under any definition of the word.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Burned bacon, that's a terrible smell, JB. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notwithstanding that here is some related significant coverage, this is nonnotable. Bongo  matic  06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, with regards to that link I'm not sure if I should laugh or be horrified...not to mention what a waste of food ;P
 * Comment The article is actually misnamed. It should probably be listed as pork (IRC client). This Google search turns up quite a bit more coverage and it may very well be possible to eventually do a right proper standalone article for this program. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial search for "pork irc linux" on books/news/scholar was uneventful. just fwiw, that a better search term than the plain article title was attempted. Miami33139 (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat of an older client so it may be more difficult to find coverage. Many of the unix-like clients predate Google and some even predate Altavista. With a web as dynamic in nature as it is, something that might have been there 10 or even 2 years ago that would have been a great reference for Wikipedia today might not still be there now. Sometimes it is possible to find good coverage in websites that have been saved by Archive.org, although in the case of this client, I have no idea where the best place to look might be since I've not had a chance to do much checking. This client is at least notable for being the only curses/ncurses combination IRC/AIM console type client for unix-like platforms. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that Pork is still live - if I remember right it's even in the current Debian repositories. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'apt-get install pork' and there it is. Miami33139 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Regardless of the article's notability or not, I do not think AfD's should be conducted in this disrespectful manner. Editors who wish to be taken seriously should refrain from attempting to be humorous and cute unless they do so at an AfD of an article they created or contributed to. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Turquoise, from what I've observed since doing this for over two years, humor can and will pop up on an AFD. It's not something we can control - and I, for one, would not want to have every AFD discussion 100% serious. Some of these discussions, to be frank, just ask for it. A little silliness is not unwelcome in my opinion.  In any event, if you wish to discuss this issue as a matter of policy, I recommend going over to the talk page for WP:AFD for a start. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero significant coverage in RS.  Triplestop  x3  17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. This client's main name to fame is its ability to work via a text console or remote session while most Multi-IM clients require a GUI. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:01, 5 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.