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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveChat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: A version of this article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livechat. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Chat is one of category names. There are many live chat softwares provided by other companies under the "Live Chat" category. So I think Live Chat shoud be an article telling visits following things: what is live chat, features of live chat, functions of live chat and so on. It is not reasonable to create a "livechat" article for only one live chat software product. Ellen here (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a substantial difference between 'LiveChat' service and general category of live chat software. Agree that 'Live Chat' (written separately as 2 words) is one of generic descriptions for chat software. At this moment Wikipedia presents that correctly: live chat, live help and live person all link to live support software page, where a general description of the software for maintaining online relations with website visitors is listed. 'LiveChat' is a page describing the popular brand. 'LiveChat' is also protected by the USPTO trademark (registration no: 3068899; no claim is made to 'Live Chat' written separately). Klim3k 09:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The nominator's rationale for deletion is not a valid one, as it's an issue that can be easily handled with disambiguation, not with deletion (I will take care of that shortly). However, since we're at AfD already, I decided to check this article's notability. Most of the references on the article are blogs and/or sites where this software can be downloaded, thereby failing the reliable source requirement. Of the sources on the article, only one might be construed as reliable: the "Enterprise Chat Software Reviews" one. Having only one reliable reference fails the "significant coverage" requirement. All that being said, my delete !vote is a weak one mainly because of the difficulty in locating additional sources due to this product's name easily being confused with the generic live chat software category when doing an internet search. If anyone else has better luck with finding additional reliable sources I can be persuaded to change my !vote. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references to more reliable sources, such as Internet Retailer or PC Magazine. Klim3k 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my !vote above in light of the references provided; I am now neutral. I would be amenable to a speedy keep under criterion 1 (failing to advance an argument for deletion), as the nominator's principal concern has now been fixed with dab hatnotes. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As advised by KuyaBriBri, I have removed the references to download pages and add-ons pages. Klim3k 21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would an admin please move this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveChat? This is certainly not a 3rd nomination, as the title implies, though I suppose it could be considered a 2nd nomination, as the article appears to have been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livechat (note absence of CamelCase). I'd move it myself, but I don't know what the rules are, if there are any. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination by a single-purpose/sockpuppet account. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for keeping. Whatever you guess the nominator's motive to be, the discussion should be assessed on the merits of the arguments. This is even more so when another version of the same article was deleted following consensus at an earlier AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK criterion 2 allows a speedy keep if nomination is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it" (original emphasis). I believe this is a disruptive nomination by an SPA who wants to remove/suppress information about a competitor (see my claim at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ellen here). I suppose the question of whether or not this is unquestionably disruptive is open to interpretation, but nobody unrelated has recommended deletion (well, I did, but I retracted it after the article creator improved it).

Notwithstanding all of that, I am again changing my !vote to weak keep (and striking my neutral above). While the article leaves much to be desired (specifically removal of promotional content + coverage in reliable sources outside the computing industry), the references added since this AfD was opened are enough to push this over the notability bar in my book. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep there look to be enough independent sources to establish notability. Add ins should be allowed to appear in the article, but in themselves are not independent refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (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.