Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rcirc (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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc

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

Article about one of several IRC modes in emacs. Oddly enough, it does not appeared to be covered in emacs books probably because it was adopted as "standard" (which means included) in emacs 22 (2007). The totality of independent coverage here is about 400 words in a single linux.com article covering this and three other emacs IRC clients. This level of coverage does not justify a separate article in my view. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that this "standard" is questionable because the linux.com article cited does not even say this; see WP:V. It only says that this mode and ERC are both bundled with emacs 22. The difference is that you invoke rcirc with M-x irc and the other one with M-x erc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing list announcement did not say this is standard either, so I've changed the article in that respect. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source which is also present in the stub article is also a reliable source. It is in Russian, but given your outrage in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxmail and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disgraceful, thinly-veiled racist comments over people discounting Chinese sources, you should give the same respect to other non-English sources. Linux.com was previously established to be a reliable source at RS/N and by further research done by User:Pcap. Further, this AfD nomination appears to be retaliation for me bringing up FuFoFuEd's unusual editing behaviour at ANI. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between these articles is both qualitative and quantitative. Foxmail has dozens of articles in Chinese sites like sina.com and 163.com, as well as a bunch of Chinese books, and is known to have have captured a significant portion of the Chinese email market in the beginning of the last decade. This emacs mode has a 1/4 of an article in English (in a source whose reliability and notoriety I did not contest, so I don't know why you even bring that up) and a Russian article in alexott.net, a site that is of questionable notoriety. It may well be one person's self-published blog; Alex Ott? Based on his CV he translated in Russian the emacs manual and writes a blog, which is probably a continuation of that area of interest. Also, I'm not targeting your contributions as you claim on a whim. I've also nominated for discussion an email mode emacs: wanderlust (software). I don't think these emacs modes are independently notable mainly because they are not discussed by sources focused on the application domain (irc or email), only by sources discussing emacs. They also have little independent coverage even in that niche context, in part because there's plethora of them (at least 3 modes for email and 4 for irc.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, where did you bring my behavior to ANI? I recall Msniki did that complaining that I wrote an essay, which was then deleted. Is this a different discussion? If so, I can't find it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 16 June 2011 (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.