Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

DELETE. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable and borderline-notable chat clients. JBsupreme (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - There are a lot of IRC related "comparison" pages. I'll list some here. They might either be merge candidates, or AfD candidates. I'm neutral on the issue.

• Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients
• Comparison of Internet Relay Chat daemons
• Comparison of Internet Relay Chat services
• Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients
• Internet Relay Chat services

Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links added to above list by Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why Internet Relay Chat services is mentioned in the above list? How exactly is Internet Relay Chat services a comparison article? --Tothwolf (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep the are hundreds of "comparison" articles on wikipedia, they exist to present information in an easily accessible format. UltraMagnus^speak 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing wrong with this comparison article. It provides valid information, which some will find useful. See WP:ALMANAC. I also find it odd/tragic that many of the articles were merged here after their AFD, some using the excuse that the information was already found here(even though its not but a token mention). This article can be seen as a valid list article, since most of the links are still blue, and it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as mentioned above, previous articles have been AFDd based on the fact that this article was a better place to put the information rather than loads of entries for every client. Dataforce (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been around for years (July 05), why does there appear the sudden desire to delete all articles related to IRC? Dataforce (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination reason above is not backed up by any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The nom makes an argument of just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid.
  The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
  Many of the currently red link entries in these tables are in fact quite notable; we just don't yet have articles about them. Others will eventually be redirected to a glossary-type article where we can give some of the smaller but well known topics (which are important to the "IRC community") better coverage.
  This particular article has lots of references and many editors including myself have been actively expanding it and adding additional references. It uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses.
  This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Software comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Wikipedia.
  Put simply, this AfD was a bad faith AfD nomination by User:JBsupreme. This AfD was done in retaliation for comments I made at DRV here. For an overview of the larger issue, see this discussion on AN/I.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The nom again did not use an edit summary when nominating this article for AfD [1] in yet another attempt to have this one fly under the radar. This is a continuation of the pattern linked in the AN/I discussion above. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Much more than a directory, provides lots of useful -and often sourced, even maybe if not as thoroughly as it could be (but that's grounds for improvement,not deletion) information about a lot of notable software. There is nothing in policy/guidelines against this article. I also disagree with the merging, which IMHO created a mess. --Cyclopia^talk 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which merge created a mess? I believe only one article was merged as part of the mass-AfD mess, and it was one I largely wrote to expand a prior stub. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant what I think DreamFocus referred above, that is, the fact other previously-AfD-and-kept articles have been re-cited above as possible AfD candidates. --Cyclopia^talk 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the other comparison articles linked above? (I've also asked Shadowjams why Internet Relay Chat services is included in the list above since it isn't even a comparison article.) The only client article I could think of was Neebly, which while closed as a merge, wasn't technically a merge as I wrote the content for both the article and the entry for the comparison tables so I just redirected it. I don't think there was anything in the article that isn't present in the comparison article but feel free to double check. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Editorial control This list in its current form is indiscriminate. AfD is not supposed to be for cleanup, but the article owner should exercise some restraint. Maybe AfD can provide a centralized discussion for content direction in this case. Miami33139 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]