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-trivial coverage (e.g. Yalm magazine article and The Apps review) exists and thus makes all delete !votes void that claimed non such exists and thus deletion is needed. Only one editor took those sources into account and still !voted delete while the other delete !votes have not adressed those sources at all in their reasoning (one even took the sources into account but still argued it's not a notable subject despite non-trivial, third-party coverage). As such, the keep !votes are more convincing in this case although the article needs to integrate aforementioned coverage as footnotes to allow better access. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeeChat[edit]

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

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

This article was deleted a year ago because it was not-notable and had no reliable sources showing notability. It has been recreated, is still not notable, and still contains only self-published sources. Speedy delete as recreated material was declined. Miami33139 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Request administrator undelete previous version for public comparison (am posting request to WP:UND). ^Bongo_matic 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No matter how much expansion may have been done there is no significant coverage in independent sources, cited or not--period. ^Bongo_matic 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another IRC client article that fails WP:N by not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (The cited sources are just websites servicing the software, and don't constitute either "significant", "reliable" or "independent".) IRC Clients are not inherently notable and Wikipedia should not be a directory of every IRC client ever created - just the extraodinary ones. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stated by several above, notability / sourcing doesn't seem to be there. Mentions of updates, patches, etc are all that I can find. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4/Delete Recreation of properly deleted material, which still has not gained any notability. Or, in other words, yet another "look at this piece of software! It's bundled among a million other executables in a common operating system!" article. Ray^Talk 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom tried to G4, and it was declined. Hence this. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, in that case, just think of me as a Delete - I added it up top. Ray^Talk 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, someone else nominated G4, I brought it to AfD when that was declined. Miami33139 (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Personally I think this meets CSD G4 for speedy deletion. Not sure how or why it was declined. In any case its obviously not notable. Perhaps some liberal WP:SALT should be added. JBsupreme (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the full comparative third-party review at [1] supplemented to some extent by the 2 relevant books listed on gbooks, [2], which assumes it as the standard client, and [3], which includes it in the list of clients. All 3 are right up there in the pre-built search. The review is the key ref, and how the people above can say there are none when that one is right there escapes me. (I would also argue on the basis of apparently very widespread use, but it's unnecessary, given that ref.). DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This link to an article [4] in Yalm magazine written by Thomas Rudolph was already present in the article. The link was broken but it took less than a second to correct it. This article is in German but the guidelines do not restrict articles to English-only sources. This review [5] was also already present in the article. Both of these are independent, 3rd party sources, with Rudolph's article being fairly comprehensive. I'm not sure how it could be claimed "contains only self-published sources" when these were already present in the article when it was nominated for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or not, what is the basis for believing that coverage in Yalm magazine or the-apps.org qualifies as significant coverage in reliable sources for notability purposes? Or freesoftwaremagazine for that matter (the mention in the book does not even come close to the "significant coverage" threshold). ^Bongo_matic 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about being self published? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you? "I'm not sure how it could be claimed 'contains only self-published sources' when these were already present in the article when it was nominated for AfD." I'm saying regardless of the inaccuracy of the charges about the original article, these sources do not demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 23:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yalm magazine meets the requirements of WP:RS and the article in Yalm is comprehensive. With that in mind, and especially with everything else that has been linked here and in the article, I see absolutely no reason why there would be a problem with notability. The original article that was deleted in November 2008 had absolutely no sources and was little more than a list of features. This article is properly sourced and actually contains information of value to the average reader who wants to know something about this subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has notable mention in various reliable sources now. Glad some took the time to search for sources, before simply saying delete. Dream Focus 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, do you or not consider that a RS? DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I still feel we should delete as per my argument above. Sources establish a rebuttal resumption of notability under WP:N, they're not the final arbiter of it. They need to be backed up by an assertion of notability - that is, a claim that the subject of the article is in some way of interest and importance to a level deserving encylopaedic coverage - and no such assertion is made in the article. Plainly IRC clients cannot be inherently notable and there's nothing asserting that this piece of software is more notable than IRC clients generally. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument still amounts to WP:JNN. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:53, 8 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.