Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolsmile

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 delete. Sandstein 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolsmile[edit]

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

DELETE. Frankly, I feel that this is a speedy deletion candidate as no notability is asserted, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. This entire category really needs to go save for one or two articles. :-( JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (A7) article does not assert notability. Delete - article does not assert notability and therefore is unable to meet WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it meets the spirit of WP:CSD#A7 in that it makes not assertions of importance or notability at all, the CSD criteria are meant to be interpreted strictly and they don't include products so I am not not comfortable speedy deleting it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:Advertising and non notable as others has shown. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a software directory Miami33139 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: I can find significant coverage for this software, where's the problem? Searching for French keywords reverals additional sources, e.g. solid DMOZ reference. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to add the sources you've found here or to the article (or preferably both) so that it can be verified that (a) they exist, (b) they are reliable sources and (c) that they actually verify the article (e.g. they aren't just passing mentions). Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem, I added both DMOZ references to the article. From the hits I found it looks like Coolsmile is popular in France. There is to my knowledge not a lot of IRC software originating from France, is this possibly the most popular French IRC web chat? It used to be CGI:IRC, which is not actively extended any more and has fallen behind feature-wise. Perhaps we can include this AfD in a France related deletion discussion to get better information. Merci! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DMOZ, as a user contributed open-content site, is not a WP:RS. Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me correct this, DMOZ is not a open-editable site [1] and for example Google uses it for page rank determination (this has been discussed at AfD 2 days before). Please come forward with some evidence. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) what are the 4 most prominent French IRC clients you have identified in your research? Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Coolsmile. There is nothing in the current article that can't be covered by adding a few footnotes to some of the existing comparison tables. If the subject is later deemed to be notable enough for a standalone article and sufficient sources indicating notability can be located it can be improved and expanded at that time. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:27, 4 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.