Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neebly

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 merge to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Neebly. MuZemike 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neebly

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

DELETE. The epitome of non-notable. We really need to institute a CSD for software which doesn't even make an attempt at establishing notability or reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This stuff really belongs on some other wiki that doesn't have WP:N and WP:V requirements as strict as Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of record: WP:N is not particularly strict: it is a guideline, not a policy. It is editors which tend interpret it overly strictly, forgetting WP:NOTPAPER, WP:DEADLINE and other equally useful advices. :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Neebly. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tothwolf. Not really notable by itself, yet it deserves to be covered somewhere. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:30, 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.