Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination)

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 keep. —fetch ·comms 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

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

Delete. This is a renomination from nine months ago. I've monitored this article since then, and it remains to be a long, comparative list of non-notable products all of which are red links or circular redirects. In the previous discussion WP:USEFUL was cited, but there is lots of useful information on the internet of questionable reliability. The difference is that we are not a product guide, we do not advertise for non-notable software products, we are not a software directory, and we do not publish original research or otherwise redistribute information that has not been first cited by a reliable third party publication. Thank you for your time. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a software catalog. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Wikipedia is not a comparison service. Standalone lists should have "membership criteria based on reliable sources." No sources here except maybe some self-published ones. Much of data on this list is original research. These problems with article are systemic and cannot be fixed. If sources appeared article would not look like it does now. New author should start it completely over based on the sources. Deletion of this OR material would not be useful to a new author. Miami33139 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:Software comparisons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy based argument. Miami33139 (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article. In such a case, both arguments should likely be discounted by the closing administrator." Silverseren^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second user has provided a reason to delete the article. Please note my delete rationale. Miami33139 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OSE. As clearly shown by Richard Arthur Norton, consensus by existence of the category clearly seems to show that comparisons of different types of software are, in general, accepted on Wikipedia. For this reason, it can be said that such comparison lists are an exception to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as the information contained within is encyclopedic-ally relevant and convenient for understanding the differences between brands of a specific type of software. Silverseren^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are exceptions to exceptions even. Not one single subject listed on this comparison page is notable. All links are red links or are circular redirects. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because they are IRC clients. Not very many of them are going to be notable enough for their own article. For the best effect, the links should probably be directed to the mobile device that they are for, since that is what this page is about, a comparison between IRC clients for mobile devices. For example, AndroidChat should direct the reader to the article for the Android. But, regardless, the fact that there are red links doesn't make the page non-notable, since the purpose of the page is to give comparisons, not to necessarily direct the reader elsewhere (though they should have the option to look at the devices for the clients, per my suggestion). Silverseren^C 06:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of the individual notability of the clients, where does the comparison information come from? It has to come from reliable sources. Do you see any in this article? Miami33139 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is true. But has any effort been made whatsoever to see if sources can be added? From what I can see, the answer to that is no. Silver seren^C 07:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Burden to add source for a fact is on those who add the fact. Since no source exist for any fact, all fact can be deleted. That is what my rationale says. Maybe this is valid topic, but this version is not it and this version can not be fix without starting from zero. So delete it, let someone else start from zero and build up using sourced material. This unreference material actually hinder attempt to make a valid one because unreference material in the way. Miami33139 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, don't the websites for the clients, listed on the far right column, contain the information? At first glance, it looks like they do. Silver seren^C 07:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you cite any random fact given about CoolIRC based on website given? Don't trust first glance. This is why lists must have objective inclusion criteria which this completely fails. Miami33139 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hah hah, picking the one that has a broken link. However, take Mobile Colloquy. The website attached has all of the information provided. Silver seren^C 08:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Does Mobile Colloqquy support IPv6 or TLS? Miami33139 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voters should make sure to look at the arguments put forth in the previous AfD for this article and also this AfD (as was pointed out in the previous AfD). Silver seren^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I just realized that both of those AfDs were also nominated by JBsupreme. Silver seren^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator is the same nominator of the last AfD, which had no other !votes to delete. Nominator raises no new reasons for deletion. Perhaps if the OP disagreed with the consensus, he could have taken it to deletion discussion (though I suspect there would be few there who would agree with him). WP:BEFORE could be followed & our deletion policy notes that "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." --Karnesky (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no new arguments for deletion since previous keep. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is blatantly false. I will reiterate now, as I did at the start of this nomination that this list has not improved since the original nomination and defies our standards both for notability and attribution to reliable third party sources. There is not some sort of magical loophole for comparison lists that I'm aware of, and shouting WP:USEFUL doesn't make these problems go away either. In the end the closing administrator can weigh the arguments from all parties as he or she wishes. In Wikipedia I trust. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Wikipedia is not about creating and enforcing rules, it is creating and improving articles. (Hence WP:IAR.) We have lots of unsung but extremely good Comparison-of-<products> articles. Such articles consist of tables, meaning that some of the rules for normal (prose-format) articles cannot be applied without compromising them. So there does have to be some loosening of some of our rules for comparison articles (unless you want to argue for banning all comparison articles, in which case I say you have no idea what Wikipedia is about and should cease editing immediately.)
This article could use some improvement, but that is no reason to delete it. Indeed, the chances of someone working on improving it would be improved if people would stop trying to get it deleted on the basis of excessively creative wikilawyering. CWC 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since (in your eyes) it's such an obvious keep, even while acknowledging this list is flawed, what do you propose can be done to improve it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That question is irrelevant here. Cheers, CWC 03:04, 10 August 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.