Content deleted Content added
→ERC (IRC client): keep |
No edit summary |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''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.) - [[User:DustFormsWords|DustFormsWords]] ([[User talk:DustFormsWords|talk]]) 00:45, 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.) - [[User:DustFormsWords|DustFormsWords]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">'''Cycl'''</font><sup><big>'''o'''</big></sup><font color="green">'''pia'''</font>]] - [[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - There are several references of third-party coverage added to the article, including a linux.com article. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">'''Cycl'''</font><sup><big>'''o'''</big></sup><font color="green">'''pia'''</font>]] - [[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
** None of the sources you refer to amount to non-trivial. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:36, 1 October 2009
ERC (IRC client)
- ERC (IRC client) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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#Extensible. —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 ([1][2]). 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)
- 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)
- 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. --Cyclopia - talk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)