Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuxi


 * 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. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Smuxi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has been tagged as needing sources for a long time and none have been presented even after extensive editing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and have been in the article since the day after you requested sources ("since last November" is a long time?), and are independent, reliable, and substantive.  What are your objections to them? &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to be grateful he didn't prod it, as he did with klibc. Pcap ping  17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit summary that replaced the notability tag said "(Don't agree tuxradar and toms hardware convey notability. Both of those are giant indiscriminate lists containing mass amounts of products. It doesn't equate significant coverage)" Miami33139 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw Crossmr's edit summary, yes. I was hoping you had objections of your own, because his doesn't hold water.  The Tuxradar source reviews only one IRC client, and the only other product reviewed that's even close is Gwibber, a microblogging client.  Tom's Hardware reviews seven IRC clients, of 30 products total.  Literally hundreds of IRC clients have been released; reviewing one, or seven, can't reasonably be considered indiscriminate.  As for the complaint that they review "mass amounts of products", if anything, it adds to the sources' reliability.  Keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 07:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, even if somewhat weakly. Covered in Tom's Hardware, at more length in TuxRadar, which is an online publication owned by Linux Format, and also in the print issue of that magazine . All of these sources were present in the article at the time of nomination. Granted, being reviewed in an article on more obscure apps (TuxRadar) is surely not an indication of popularity or importance. I find it ironic, but not surprising however, that the hardcore deletionists when presented with arguments that something is important, immediately argue that notability is all that matters, and when presented with significant coverage in WP:RS, they argue that the topic is simply not notable (as in popular or important) because it is discussed at some length among other not well-known topics. Besides, if the round-up in Tom's Hardware was as indiscriminate as some say, we'd be able to reference any IRC software on this site from it, including the whole Comparison of IRC clients. Clearly that's not the case given the number of IRC clients that got deleted. Pcap ping  03:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, coverage in Tom's Hardware and elsewhere sufficient to prove notability.   D r e a m Focus  13:33, 4 February 2010 (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.