402:
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
294:
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
189:
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. Knowledge is not a software directory. As an alternative to deletion, this could be reduced to a single sentence in the
397:
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
312:
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
481:, 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
212:
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,
158:
119:
253:
152:
381:
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.
280:
457:
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."
235:
17:
478:
454:
473:
works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."
173:
466:
140:
514:
92:
87:
36:
513:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
96:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
462:
268:
79:
134:
422:. The article fails to establish why exactly this product is notable. It also fails to demonstrate
217:
199:
435:
166:
130:
493:
408:
300:
497:
439:
412:
392:
370:
340:
304:
270:
239:
220:
203:
61:
261:
230:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
180:
399:
350:
318:
214:
195:
55:
453:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and
431:
361:
489:
447:
404:
388:
296:
291:
146:
113:
470:
288:
83:
50:
314:
284:
191:
383:
353:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
75:
67:
507:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
444:
JBsupreme, give it a break already, your games are getting old.
461:""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow
109:
105:
101:
165:
358:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
517:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:""Sources," for notability purposes, should be
281:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#rcirc
254:list of Software-related deletion discussions
179:
8:
248:
252:: This debate has been included in the
7:
403:appropriate (and was suggested). --
24:
317:, that adds to its notability.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
465:evaluation of notability, per
271:17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
240:17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
221:15:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
204:15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
467:the reliable source guideline
62:08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
498:10:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
440:08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
430:third party publications.
413:07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
393:06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
371:06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
341:03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
305:04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
534:
510:Please do not modify it.
469:. Sources may encompass
32:Please do not modify it.
290:is a valid source per
277:Keep or Merge/Redirect
455:no original research
424:non-trivial coverage
44:The result was
479:secondary sources
373:
369:
273:
257:
238:
525:
512:
400:ERC (IRC client)
368:
366:
359:
357:
355:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
264:
258:
234:
229:Looks OK to me.
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
58:
53:
34:
533:
532:
528:
527:
526:
524:
523:
522:
521:
515:deletion review
508:
362:
360:
348:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
262:
126:
90:
74:
71:
56:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
531:
529:
520:
519:
503:
502:
501:
500:
487:
475:
459:
451:
445:
417:
416:
415:
375:
374:
356:
345:
344:
343:
307:
274:
245:
244:
243:
242:
224:
223:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
530:
518:
516:
511:
505:
504:
499:
495:
491:
486:
484:
480:
474:
472:
468:
464:
458:
456:
449:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
401:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
385:
380:
377:
376:
372:
367:
365:
354:
352:
347:
346:
342:
339:
338:
316:
311:
308:
306:
302:
298:
293:
289:
286:
282:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
265:
255:
251:
247:
246:
241:
237:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
509:
506:
482:
476:
460:
452:
427:
423:
419:
382:
378:
363:
349:
319:
309:
276:
263:Juliancolton
260:
249:
231:UltraExactZZ
209:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
295:clients. --
153:free images
463:verifiable
364:Sandstein
196:Miami33139
483:preferred
471:published
432:JBsupreme
315:GNU Emacs
285:Linux.com
213:though.--
194:article.
192:GNU Emacs
490:Tothwolf
428:multiple
405:Tothwolf
351:Relisted
297:Tothwolf
287:article
236:Evidence
210:Comment:
120:View log
450:states:
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
448:WP:GNG
420:Delete
283:. The
215:otherl
131:Google
97:delete
426:from
389:talk
336:Focus
292:WP:RS
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
76:Rcirc
68:Rcirc
16:<
494:talk
446:The
436:talk
409:talk
379:Keep
310:Keep
301:talk
259:-- –
250:Note
218:left
200:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
46:keep
384:DGG
279:to
181:TWL
118:– (
57:Why
496:)
488:--
485:."
438:)
411:)
391:)
303:)
267:|
256:.
202:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
52:So
48:.
492:(
434:(
407:(
387:(
333:m
330:a
327:e
324:r
321:D
299:(
233:~
198:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.