Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rcirc

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. So Why 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc

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

This software article was had PROD removed. It is not notable, makes no claim to be notable, and existing references from the publisher merely show that it exists. Wikipedia is not a software directory. As an alternative to deletion, this could be reduced to a single sentence in the GNU Emacs article. Miami33139 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the deletion template on the page shows a redlink to this discussion, even though I cleared my cache and it does bring the user to this page. I don't know templates well enough to monkey around with the code, though.--otherl left 15:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#rcirc. The Linux.com article [1] is a valid source per WP:RS and I think it goes a long way towards establishing notability for this subject. If the article is to remain a sub-stub however, it would seem to be more appropriate to simply add any relevant information to the tables in the comparison article and redirect there as we already do for many other clients. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the name "rcirc" is used for other things as well, many false results keeping popping up when searching the news and books. But if Linux.com has an article about it, that does indicate notability. And if the software was good enough to be included as GNU Emacs, that adds to its notability. Dream Focus 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since " It is the standard client for IRC in GNU Emacs." There is no reason to merge; it would be better to add information based on the review mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, if the article is going to remain a sub-stub though and not be expanded, then a merge/redirect would at least give the reader more information. GNU Emacs actually includes a number of built-in clients (as the Linux.com review mentions) including ERC (IRC client) which is also currently at AfD due to this same mass-nomination of articles. I'm already looking at several of these AfDs from the same mass-AfD batch that have closed as delete for basically no reason other than the nom and a few per-noms even though a merge/redirect would have been much more appropriate (and was suggested). --Tothwolf (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to establish why exactly this product is notable. It also fails to demonstrate non-trivial coverage from multiple third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme, give it a break already, your games are getting old.
  The WP:GNG states:
  ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."
  ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred."
  --Tothwolf (talk) 10:28, 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.