| Revision as of 14:02, 4 November 2009 editTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 edits →Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients: Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:34, 4 November 2009 edit undoTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 edits →Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients: KeepNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| * '''Strong keep''' as mentioned above, previous articles have been AFDd based on the fact that this article was a better place to put the information rather than loads of entries for every client. ] (]) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | * '''Strong keep''' as mentioned above, previous articles have been AFDd based on the fact that this article was a better place to put the information rather than loads of entries for every client. ] (]) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ** Note: This article has been around for years (July 05), why does there appear the sudden desire to delete all articles related to IRC? ] (]) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ** Note: This article has been around for years (July 05), why does there appear the sudden desire to delete all articles related to IRC? ] (]) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' The nomination reason above is not backed up by any of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. The nom makes an argument of ], which while false, is also one of the many ].<br />The ] ''guideline'' does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only ''helps'' determine if a ''specific'' subject should have its own standalone article. ] states: ''"The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a '''separate article''' in Misplaced Pages. They do not give guidance on the '''content''' of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various ] govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics '''within''' articles decided by its appropriate ]."''<br />Many of the currently ] entries in these tables are in fact quite notable; we just don't yet have articles about them. Others will eventually be ] to a ]-type article where we can give some of the smaller but well known topics (which are important to the "IRC community") better coverage.<br />This particular article has lots of references and many editors including myself have been actively expanding it and adding additional references. It uses two citation methods; ] and ]. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses.<br />This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see ] for an overview of many of these articles on Misplaced Pages.<br />Put simply, this AfD was a bad faith AfD nomination by ]. This AfD was done in retaliation for comments I made at DRV ]. For an overview of the larger issue, see ] on AN/I.<br />--] (]) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:34, 4 November 2009
Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients
- Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. Misplaced Pages is not a directory of non-notable and borderline-notable chat clients. JBsupreme (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note - There are a lot of IRC related "comparison" pages. I'll list some here. They might either be merge candidates, or AfD candidates. I'm neutral on the issue.
Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Links added to above list by Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled as to why Internet Relay Chat services is mentioned in the above list? How exactly is Internet Relay Chat services a comparison article? --Tothwolf (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep the are hundreds of "comparison" articles on wikipedia, they exist to present information in an easily accessible format. UltraMagnus 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with this comparison article. It provides valid information, which some will find useful. See WP:ALMANAC. I also find it odd/tragic that many of the articles were merged here after their AFD, some using the excuse that the information was already found here(even though its not but a token mention). This article can be seen as a valid list article, since most of the links are still blue, and it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep as mentioned above, previous articles have been AFDd based on the fact that this article was a better place to put the information rather than loads of entries for every client. Dataforce (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This article has been around for years (July 05), why does there appear the sudden desire to delete all articles related to IRC? Dataforce (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination reason above is not backed up by any of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. The nom makes an argument of just not notable, which while false, is also one of the many arguments to avoid.
The notability guideline does not limit what can or cannot be included in a particular article. The notability guideline only helps determine if a specific subject should have its own standalone article. WP:NCC states: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Misplaced Pages. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
Many of the currently red link entries in these tables are in fact quite notable; we just don't yet have articles about them. Others will eventually be redirected to a glossary-type article where we can give some of the smaller but well known topics (which are important to the "IRC community") better coverage.
This particular article has lots of references and many editors including myself have been actively expanding it and adding additional references. It uses two citation methods; inline citations and embedded citations. While inline citations are preferred for some things, embedded citations are commonplace in comparison tables and lists and work extremely well for those particular uses.
This article is not unique in its layout or structure, see Category:Software comparisons for an overview of many of these articles on Misplaced Pages.
Put simply, this AfD was a bad faith AfD nomination by User:JBsupreme. This AfD was done in retaliation for comments I made at DRV here. For an overview of the larger issue, see this discussion on AN/I.
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)