Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafChat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LeafChat

[edit]
LeafChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the three references, 2 are mere directory listing; the first is a review in a personal blog. This field is not one of my specialties, so if the blog author is a true authority it might be OK. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but they are the best references I can find. It is notable as an IRC client, as useful software. Just nobody has written about it yet. I know OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a bad argument but why do you pick this, instead of the thousands of unreferenced species articles that are lying there unlocked at, stubs, instead of AfDing articles about software which needed to be created. And also I think the blog author is quite important, so it "might be OK". Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment that it "might be OK" is a pretty clear indication of my lack of bias--I bring it here for those who know the subject to consider it, as I would any specialized article with weak sources, and in light of the previous discussions of similar software, many of which did end in deletion. FWIW, Every biological species with an accepted name must by definition have been a major subject of an article in a RS, so I know they're findable. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below - Joe Ottinger is reliable for Java commentary as former editor of Java Developer's Journal1 and former editor-in-chief of TheServerSide.com2 - does that, and the rest of the discussion below, change anything about your nom? --Lexein (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral - as per subsequent discussion. on the basis of my response to Rcsprinter123 above. Stalwart111 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not a wikipedia policy wonk, but FWIW, I was looking for a new IRC client and found LeafChat as a result of this article. I have not made a final decision yet, but Leafchat is in the running, and I probably would not have seen it if it were not for the page here. I know this probably does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, but know that at least one Wikipedia user found the article useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.185.118 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: consistent listing in multiple books by many different authors as a popular, or suggested client. This is many referrals in substantial books over multiple years, from 2001-2012 not just one or two: [1]. Yes, these are not reviews, or substantial discussions, but per WP:N, quantity of references over time should be considered when depth of references is in question.
Also, this blog review from last year, indicating continued relevance, as "one of the best":
--Lexein (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--(addendum) Lexein (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, nice work finding some of those and for going to the effort. Unfortunately, I still don't think they (collectively) could be considered significant coverage. Yes, quantity is also a consideration but these aren't even paragraphs on the subject - they are one-off passing mentions, some in longer lists of IRC program "examples". Beyond that, some of the sources are by the same people - so even if they were substantive references, these would be considered one source each for the purposes of WP:N. The last one is from a blog so wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source. In total it's probably enough to change my "vote" to "weak delete" but, in my opinion, we need more to justify a keep. Stalwart111 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Response to addendum) - on the basis of your comment, the Ottinger blog might be okay. But the rest, in my opinion, are still passing mentions or how-to guides, not "significant coverage". I've said many times before, 1 or 2 good articles will often be better than dozens of non-specific passing mentions or directory listings. Stalwart111 07:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been on your side of this argument, and though I categorically agree that one or two good articles are great, I have never excluded an arguably extensive list of nine book mentions in multiple language by a multiplicity of authors over a period of twelve years, since that indicates "breadth", if not depth. This is not an insubstantial, fly-by-night, bluntly non-notable client: I've seen 'em, and this is not one of 'em: see Orion here, which had an article and a list entry based solely on primary sourcing and an odd reading of WP:SELFPUB with which I disagree. I also don't exclude how-to guides covering the topic - that is substantive independent coverage: in this case, the "review" value is that it's easy to set up, and preferred (by the authors) because it's free. --Lexein (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, certainly not "bluntly" non-notable. There's a far better case for this than for other stuff but then, WP:OTHERSTUFF. But I'm not for a minute suggesting that's your argument. Agree entirely it indicates breadth, but most WP:N guidelines call for depth. On how-to guides, there's actually been a bunch of recent AFDs where how-to guides were offered up as sources. While I'm not suggesting there have been enough cases to establish any sort of consensus, it has consistently (from my experience) been argued that how-to guides are not considered significant coverage. However, in most of those cases, the how-to guides were created by the product's creators/manufacturers so they were also not independent. That is not the case here. It's clear the subject is important to certain people and has been recognised as such, even if not in depth. The Ottinger blog is a good source (having another look at it) though I remain concerned that it seems to be the only "significant coverage" available. On balance I'm still not strongly convinced it should be kept but the arguments presented convince me there is no particularly strong argument for deleting it either. Am changing my "vote" to Neutral and will keep watching the discussion with interest. Stalwart111 12:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to me that this is a case of extreme WP:EXISTS. All those references do nothing more than prove that this application exists, but not that it is in any way, shape or form actually notable. WP:NSOFTWARE is quite clear on this. There are no useful claims to actual notability here. I'd be sold on something like the first IRC client written in Java or written by <insert renowned developer> or product of <notable company or notable software project>. None of the quoted reviews, to me, serve to establish notability. There is nothing superlative or special about it. It just exists. Like dozens of other IRC clients and thousands of other computer applications, commercial or free or open or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog 20:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sacre bleu indeed. To demand "special" or some archly heightened meaning of notability is not called for, and is dead against the guidelines you link to. Wikipedia is not a collection of elites. You are ignoring the simple fact that this has been suggested as a credible client among its peer clients for twelve years, in multiple languages, in books by a multiplicity of authors and co-authors including Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media, at your mere whim, and selective reading of guideline. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well your job then is to try and convince everyone that a phrase such as "suggested as a credible client" is somehow a claim to notability - a higher standard and threshold than simple verifiability and mere existence of sources (which I note you have indeed provided in this case). And those "elitist" guidelines are created by the community to improve the quality and depth of the encyclopedia, not to ruin your morning. §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, WP:NSOFTWARE is an essay and not a guideline. There are at least 2 or 3 of these essays floating around in project space and the community has repeatedly rejected using them for guideline purposes. Because of the diversity of computer software, no hard and fast rules can really work for everything. PS, I see what you did there. [2] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind justifying that? To the left, I mean, as in left-justifying your !vote. Heh. --Lexein (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This requires ignoring two reviews. --Lexein (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reviews from reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Published domain experts or expert organizations are quite satisfactory as sources. You're awesome. --Lexein (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vote-counts are a bit pointless because AFDs are not decided by votes but by WP:CONSENSUS and weight of arguments. Besides which, you missed a Delete vote in your count. "Dismissing" someone (above) is not particularly friendly - you might want revisit that. Stalwart111 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - neglected <ins></ins> --Lexein (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:23, 11 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LeafChat&oldid=1082617947"