Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enhanced Programmable ircII Client Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enhanced_Programmable_ircII_Client

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. JForget 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Programmable ircII Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Well, at least I've heard of this one, it has that going for it. I searched Google News Archives and Google Books, with no success at finding substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. I tried queries "Enhanced Programmable ircII Client" and "EPIC +IRC". JBsupreme (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find in Google is download sites. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found this, which isn't zero, but not enough to meet the general notability guideline either. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the book; it's only mentioned in a table there. A better search is for EPIC4 though, but even that doesn't find more than passing mentions [1] Pcap ping 08:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This is probably an established client in the Linux IRC niche, e.g. called "well-known" and "classic" in a couple of blog round-ups [2] [3], and the developer of EPIC5 was interviewed on ircjunkies [4], but I don't think it meets WP:GNG yet. Pcap ping 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - no Google news hits, and there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage by reliable third parties to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:29, 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.