Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThrashIRC

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

ThrashIRC[edit]

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

No indication of notability with little hope of additional content. Google hits only show download locations and unreliable reviews. The only content I could find was this message. While such a blog is not a reliable source, it does give us some insight into the level of notability of this IRC client. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be any reliable sources out there for this. Aiken ♫ 00:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just someone's home project. This type of program was old hat about 8 years ago, I used IRC back then and this type of client. Brings back bad memories of dial up modems. It was crap. I doubt there is a single IRC program in the world that is worthy of a page on WP. This one certainly not. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are numerous notable IRC clients that have pages. Aiken ♫ 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coment. Fair enough. A Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients shows many haven't been updated for years/months. It is hardly a happening part of the software industry. Anyway this client just isn't notable, it'll be gone within a week as i'm sure you also know. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm Anthony, the author of ThrashIRC, I didn't create the wiki page for ThrashIRC, and was surprised to find it in Wiki, but I have edited it today, Mar 17, 2010 because the description was wrong, and the page was basically blank. There isn't much on the web about ThrashIRC because I've never promoted it. I have no interest in promoting it in wikipedia, either, and if wiki editors feel it fails notability, that's okay with me. And I feel Szzuk's remark should be addressed...it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on their personal low opinion of IRC in general. If any editors have questions regarding my client, feel free to email me at [email protected] (sorry for not signing my post, this week was my first time writing anything on wiki)--AnthonyThrash (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've admitted IRC has a low opinion in general. Notability to some degree cascades. If IRC isn't terribly notable then an IRC program is likely to be even less notable. There are many programs such as yours that have been confined to the archives a long time ago. This isn't a reflection of how good the program is or your ability as a developer. Szzuk (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This remark was edited after I'd replied, changing its meaning. You said "it's ridiculous of anyone to criticize ThrashIRC based on a low opinion of IRC in general." Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I edited the remark to clarify it's meaning, since it was misinterpreted.--AnthonyThrash (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep **I love the fact that ThrashIRC is on Wiki. It is a great client and I use it often. ThrashIRC should definitely remain on Wiki and not be deleted. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 205.142.197.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable source, WP:ILIKEIT votes above notwithstanding. Pcap ping 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ** ThrashIRC is a great reliable software and his maker Anthony has put a lot of time and effort on it, he is always open to suggestions and accepts feed backs with enthusiasm, ThrashIRC deserves a place in wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.61.43 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 24.201.61.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this relisted? The only keep !votes either fail WP:ILIKEIT or WP:COI. This is unremarkable software, no indication of how it might meet WP:GNG, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable software. GHits show no RS. (GregJackP (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2010 (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.