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. Note on the closing time: Keeping this open to compensate the time this was NAC closed is highly unlikely to have yielded a different result and as such, would be a pointless thing to do (spirit of WP:SNOW). The subject has been demonstrated to be of notability and coverage in multiple sources. And while winning awards might not transfer to notability directly, winning many of them and being the most popular specimen of its kind usually does establish notability (together with other sources which are shown to exist). Regards SoWhy 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BitchX[edit]

BitchX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. This software is clearly not notable. Yes, there are three "references" cited, but please do not be fooled. They are all passing mentions of the product about how easily exploited it is. And by passing I mean two sentences a pop with exception to the third "source" which is really just a security bulletin (email) from the Slackware Security Team. [1] Fail, fail, fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, I passed on nominating this earlier, but since nominated, it should go. Miami33139 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - (A7) article does not assert notability. Failing that, it doesn't pass WP:N due to not establishing notability with multiple significant secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the criteria for CSD A7. A7 does not apply to software. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveat: I am not a tech guru, but wikipedia is full of similar articles about IRC clients, bitorrent clients, etc., so consensus seems to be clear that such articles should exist. (Just look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and the vast number of blue links in it, that took serious geek time to prepare). And I did some searching and found numerous references to this being a popular linux IRC client, which I added to article--so A7 Speedy is not appropriate--and that seems notable in terms of these kinds of articles. --Milowent (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these client articles are being looked at for notability claims. They might not be here next week which makes a thin thread to hang their existence on. There is no functioning definition of notable for software, which means every one of them ends up at AfD, and usually decided based on a diversion between claims of non-notable and claims of ILIKEIT. What you have said is a valid point for discussion, but the existence of similar articles is being contested individually, but also en-masse. Does this article, independently, pass the notability criteria for inclusion? Miami33139 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on multiple sources citing this client as one of the most popular IRC clients, I'd say yes.--Milowent (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A7 is completely inappropriate for this one. There are six pages on google scholar for this, which is good enough for me. I (surprisingly) did not find a good article that was devoted to the topic of only this program, but this is not our standard. There is a lot of non-exclusive coverage in the google news and google books searches. The program has ranked in multiple readers' choice awards for Linux Magazine. --Karnesky (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my argument was put on the basis that whether or not the subject is notable, it's not asserted in the article. Nothing in the article suggests why this software is more notable than any other software, and as such it can't pass WP:N. If it's won awards in Linux Magazine, that may well found a claim of notability - would you consider adding that information, with citations, to the article? Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 is reserved specifically for "individuals, animals, organisations, and web content." Some admins have viewed software (and other products) as either organizations or as web content, but many such deletions are overturned & at least kicked back to AfD. In any case, speedy deletion is no longer possible due to the calls for keeping this.
    • Awards do not equate to notability; many noteworthy things have not won awards. The fact that multiple third party sources have found it worthy to note the popularity of this particular program means that is, by definition, notable. --Karnesky (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CNN said it was a popular one for Linux. What's wrong with all the other references? A lot of people use this, and thus it should be covered. Dream Focus 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Solid references, historically valueable as BitchX overtook ircII as the most popular Linux IRC client in the 90s, there even was a newsgroup alt.irc.bitchx.[2] Nominator failed to familiarise with the subject. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • omgz, there was an alt. usenet group in the 90s? That is an amazing claim to notability. Everyone who used Usenet in the 90s surely recognizes the importance of a piece of software having a dedicated group in alt.* Miami33139 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. How important is the existance of a newsgroup? How many other IRC clients have you identified of having a newsgroup? Since you voted delete without any evidence in this AfD, do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are the 4 most prominent IRC Linux clients you have identified in your research? Please play with open cards, so we can have a meaningful notability discussion. Cheers! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elaboration: The importance of the existence of an alt. newsgroup in the 1990s was absolutely zero. Creation was unmoderated, anyone could create any group with any name at any time. When permanently archiving usenet servers came online, it meant alt.johnnie.eats.boogers existed forever. Miami33139 (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • actually i remember being asked to support the creation of some alt.newsgroups in 1996, it wasn't automatic, though i agree its existence is automatic not proof of notability. --Milowent (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me correct this, newsgroup creation is not unmoderated [3] and due absence of a central server configuration needs to be coordinated for distribution. Please answer my questions and bring forward some evidence, how many Unix IRC clients had an own newsgroup (let's see in the late 1990s we had ircII, Bitchx and what else)? The existance of a small hand full newsgroup would in my opinion underline the prominent status of BitchX. Please prove you familiarised with the subject for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while i remember that this used to be a very important irc client in the 90s (and i even used to use it), i do not think the article lives up to wikipedia's core standards of notability via third party, reliable sources. it's unfortunate that this piece of IRC/internet must become...history, but wikipedia is not meant to be an archive of all marginally popular software from the 90s. this article, in its current state, with its current sources, should be deleted per wikipedia policy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, wikipedia is an already an archive of marginally popular things from the dawn of history through the 1990s (and 2000s). No policy dictates the deletion of the article that I am aware of.--Milowent (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability is not temporary. --Karnesky (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that notability is not temporary. Not that it matters as this software product doesn't appear to have ever fit the bill of "notable" under the Wikipedia defined terms of such. JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're beyond it in this AfD, but even WP:N is only a guideline that is "primarily advisory." Based only on the multiple sources I added yesterday confirming the popularity of this client (and I can see there are more references out there about the client, I spent minimal time), I don't see how deleting this article improves the project.--Milowent (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Really. And how does keeping it improve the project? Should we apply favoritism to this one article because a few of us like it? We certainly don't do that for porn star articles. Lots of people like/love porn stars too. JBsupreme (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked first, so you answer first, JB. :-) How does deletion improve wikipedia? I am not saying that the entire slew of IRC client articles nominated for AfD (for which I cannot tell if any research was done before the noms were made) should be kept, as I only looked into this one. This is not a case of WP:ILIKEIT because I had never heard of BitchX before yesterday; I judged it based on what I could learn externally. --Milowent (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has book sources and other sources. 1 2 Antonio López ^(talk) 20:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major unix terminal IRC client, mentioned in quite a few sources such as those mentioned by others and in the article. Slightly ignoring the rules in that most of the coverage isn't in huge depth, but with the justification that not a lot of people write about unix terminal IRC clients (they're not the sexiest topic). --Cybercobra (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that not many people write about unix terminal IRC clients may simply be evidence that unix terminal IRC clients are inherently non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FUTON bias
  Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Unix Clients: BitchX". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 44 –&#32, 45. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - so there is one chapter of one obscure book from a publisher that specializes in "geek" books [[4]] about bitchx . that is not what i'd call overwhelming widespread or independent coverage. the notability just doesn't seem to be there, so i must remain with my original vote of delete Theserialcomma (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author apparently used BitchX as a sample application for using IRC, so it gets multiple minor mentions and some discussion. There is some notability evidence there, because authors tend to want to demonstrate products that people actually use. It is also kind of like the book "The Book of Drainage: The Ultimate Guide to Digging Ditches" describing that they used Model Y of Brand X shovels. We would not base a Wikipedia article for either Model Y or Brand X based on that book. It is a step in the right direction, but not convincing by itself. Miami33139 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's certainly not the case but others can always double check the book mentioned above for themselves. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On 2 Oct, KoshVorlon closed this as a non-admin closure as speedy keep: "The result was RESULT -- Keep. This is notable." Apparently the close was reverted because speedy keep was not appropriate, but I figured page should reflect this editor's view. (note I previously !voted above, I don't intend this to be seen as a 2nd vote for myself) --Milowent (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE BEFORE CLOSING: due to attempts to speedy close this AFD which stinted discussion for three days, the AFD should remain open until the 9th of October which would make it open for the full 7 days. See history for info.--Otterathome (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not. Check the history before taking the above at face value. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edit history appears to indicate that the two NACs that have taken place were in effect for 16 hours, 18 minutes and 34 minutes respectively. That doesn't seem to be anywhere close to 3 days. Given the discussion on AN/I and the fact that sources were infact readily available, easy to find, and the fact that all of the above delete !votes (with the exception of DustFormsWords) are from people directly involved in the AN/I discussion (two of whom seem to clearly be working as a single entity within this group of mass-AfD nominations) I myself would not be opposed to a speedy/snow keep close. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep [5]! Yarcanox (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.