Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmIRC

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) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AmIRC[edit]

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

Delete. Non notable software which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this GNG you speak of? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources presented for notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the scarcity of sources about Amiga software, I'm inclined to think that having a page in this book should be enough. Also included in a guide on Amiga software here OSNews. Pcap ping 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on Google book search at the top of the AFD, I find 628 results. Its mentioned in that many books, so surely it must be notable. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about it, or use it in comparison to others that came afterward. Dream Focus 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong You are including the results for "Antibody-Mediated Induction of Resistance to Cytotoxicity (AMIRC)", genes for AMIde ResistanCe, Amirc Palace and the person's name "Amirc" amongst other uses of AMIRC. A more realistic search on google books yields 2 results --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep X-chat is (allegedly, failed to find *reliable* references) influenced by AmIRC (http://packages.debian.org/fi/etch/xchat and http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/gutsy/man1/xchat.1.html). Admittely sources are still weak. Xorxos (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- X-chat's own documentation is a reliable source for what influenced its own development. Pcap ping 06:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is X-chat even notable itself? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real source to establish notability 16x9 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as no significant coverage, none of the "keep" arguments are convincing.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 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.