Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIRCH

PIRCH

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

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

Another non-notable IRC client that has no sources or references. The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, the burden is on you, and everyone here at AFD, to look for sources yourself. Otherwise you have no way of knowing, and thus no real grounds for claiming, whether something is notable or not. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't prove a negative is drilled into debate students in high shool. Your lengthy history on Wikipedia may skewer your view of citation necessity but Wikipedia went to a strict sourcing policy many years ago. Thus, debate students also get drilled on the burden of proving their assertions - in this case, for notability. The third sentence is also strict: Wikipedia should not be the biggest, best, primary, and highly search-engine ranked place for information about products. Promoting products, even free ones, is antithetical to Wikipedian ideals. Miami33139 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You're raising red herrings. You're required to look for sources yourself, to put deletion policy into action. Policy is amply clear on this: attempts to find sources must have failed. If you don't make the attempt in the first place, you cannot truthfully state that you have failed. No amount of wikilawyering or very silly ad hominems on your part (I'll leave others to clue you in on the depth of the foolishness here.) excuses you this burden. Please put deletion policy into practice properly. AFD is not a big stick for editors to idly sit by themselves and beat other people into doing work with. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (Delete) - You made that argument on a debate yesterday, UncleG, and if you've answered my rebuttal of it I haven't seen it. We're only able to assess the article as it currently stands, not the article it may possibly be some day if maybe someone finds some sources that maybe exist. Currently, there's nothing in the article that meets WP:N. If someone feels that the article should be kept, they're welcome to improve the article to pass WP:N and then draw to our attention that we may wish to re-consider our position on the basis of the changes. If your claim that we should be looking for additional sources before making an assessment is based on a policy, I'd genuinely appreciate being corrected by having the relevant policy drawn to my attention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think Uncle G is referring to WP:BEFORE, which states that deletion isn't for cleanup. (Ie, if an article can be fixed, it should be, rather than deleted). I typically interpret that as saying that nom's should make at least a cursory effort to find sources. Obviously one can't prove a negative, but some effort should be undertaken. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's more than just that. Its policy from practically day one, and standard operating procedure for Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If you are not doing this, then you are no help, and no use, to Wikipedia and to AFD, because this is what they both require, and are making zero contribution to the process. Doing the legwork onesself has been standard practice since the very first days of the Verifiability policy, and has been part of policy ever since. It's discussed in many places. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Looking for sources yourself beforehand. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, once it comes to AFD, I'd say the burden is on people who want to keep the article to find sources. At any rate, there are some news stories about PIRCH. I guess someone could flesh out an article with them... but I never liked PIRCH very much personally... and it's unclear to me that they really constitute the level of coverage needed to justify an article. Any PIRCH fans have a few hours to kill? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that the burden is for everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Joe Chill is correct. The burden is on everyone, to severally and independently look for sources, so that the right conclusion can be reliably reached. And that includes nominators. A no-effort nomination doesn't actually demonstrate lack of notability, since it cannot be tructhfully said that something isn't notable if one hasn't expended the effort to find out. Uncle G (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well it was a lazy nomination, but ultimately, sufficient sources need to be found by someone or the article will get deleted. The nominator committed a faux pas, fine, but I don't think you're seriously suggested we should keep the article just because of that, that would be silly. It's at AFD now, people are looking for sufficient sources and can't find them... it doesn't really matter that it was lazy nomination, people who want this article kept need to find sources. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While there are the sources that Sancho M. found, most of them seem to deal with exploits, vulnerabilities, or updates. I didn't see multiple independent reliable sources that discussed the software in a substantial way. (The closest I found were a review or two of the software, which didn't seem to be the same thing). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tangent (I looked at the news sources too, agreed, they were trivial). 90% of reviews are crap for determining notability. 90%, because there are exceptional review sources. If we accepted reviews as evidence of notability then every flavor or Rice-a-Roni in Wal•Mart would have a Wikipedia article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep FUTON bias
  Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "Windows IRC Clients: Pirch". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
  Joe Chill, this is what you and I were talking about yesterday. Please keep that in mind.
  Miami33139, this has gone beyond absurd. You are willfully violating so many of Wikipedia's founding principles with these actions that I don't even know where to begin to address it all. It needs to stop right now. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone with an Amazon account can read the two pages (not a chapter!) you are presenting, as well as the table of contents and index which show usage of this client. The author used six different clients for various examples in his book. Does that instantly makes all six of these clients independently notable? Does the amount the author devotes to this specific client make it notable? I say it it helpful to the notability claim, but not any sort of judo that instantly declares this obviously notable. Miami33139 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • While this is a good reference, I'm not sure that a page or so of mention in a textbook meets the multiple independent source standard. I'll reconsider if more sources are found, of course. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep yes, If they're notable enough to use as examples in a standard textbook by a responsible publisher, then they are notable. the subject does not have to be "obviously notable," the requirement for it to have a Wikipedia article is merely notable. It would of course help to find additional sources, as it always does. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - No references are given in this article. It is a sub-stub with a picture. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is this software not "obviously notable" it isn't non-obviously notable either. See that lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications? Yeah, that's right. JBsupreme (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I do not participate in this discussion. PIRCH is among the most popular IRC clients. I think deleting could make it to Slashdot and Dig, Redit front page. Actually I encourage everyone to do like deletionists do and say delete (without giving any clear reasoning). Let's make a point how absurd mass nomination of software articles is and that this cannibalises Wikipedia. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)