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. MuZemike 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JIRCii[edit]

JIRCii (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 application is not notable in any way. An extensive Google News archive search may lead you to some discussion forums which are not indicators of notability nor are they acceptable as a reliable source. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BURDEN, if sources are shown during this AfD ask me to review this opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability has not been established through third party, reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 21:33, 11 November 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.