Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual IRC

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual IRC

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

Delete. So, I looked for sources. I found a couple hits on Google Books! Don't get too excited, they all look like this: "Visual IRC is a program for communicating in chat rooms", or a URL where you can download it. I was unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources which would suggest notability of this software application. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find in Google is download sites and Google Groups. All that I can find in Google News is a forum, information about a software vulnerability, and a one sentence mention. All that I can find in Google Books are one sentence mentions and URLs to download it. Joe Chill (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wp:rs coverage in Punto Informatico, [1], de:netzwelt [2], El Tiempo [3] and fr:infos du net [4]]. According to the portal Terra Networks, it is one of the more popular chat client[5] which establishes a claim to wp:n ^walk victor falk^talk 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know a number of people whom currently utilize many of the IRC networks. Majority of those whom are on a Unix machine will connect to their network with some sort of 'visual irc' client. I think as independent software becomes more available on the internet due to the increased population learning some sort of a programming language, we need to establish Software with a new and slightly more relaxed code of conduct. There are so many programs available for free on the internet and most of them are unheard of. The problem independent developers have is generating controversy over their software; And without this attention it is nearly impossible for most independent developers to gain significant notability. But Even in terms of notability, Wouldn't it be the website that houses the software to be the most notable about the subject? Especially in terms of software. AquaFiX (talk) 12:52am 8th Monday 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be an older client, popular in the 1990s. It's surely mentioned in a dozen books indexed by google, but coverage is hard to ascertain because there's not even limited preview for the old ones, and in the newer one it's only mentioned in lists. This 2001 book includes in the short list of popular clients back then, together with mIRC and PIRCH. As for the links above by Victor Falk, they are all in lists of similar software or download pages. There's a fairly brief review here (one of the publications of internet.com), also included in a 2000 round-up in the Polish PC World [6] (you have more luck if you search for the "virc" acronym). Pcap ping 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I got myself a copy of Charalabidis's book, which is good for ancient stuff like this, and it's covered in a page of text, no screenshot: Charalabidis, Alex (1999). "Windows IRC Clients: Visual IRC". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat. No Starch Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 1-886411-29-8. Pcap ping 19:09, 8 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.