Contested deletion edit
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it's about the qwebirc client. I believe this is a valid topic of discussion, because it's a piece of software that is highly used. Bacafe (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. These define how we decide if an article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Your article clearly fails to meet any of these criteria. Further it doesn't even make a claim about the importance of Qwebirc, it just says it exists. If you can find reliable sources that demonstrate how Qwebirc is notable, please add them to the article and I will be happy to remove the deletion notice. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Recreated as redirect edit
This was previously speedied as non-notable software, see restored history and above. I'm not at all convinced of the non-notability. The speedy was valid as the article did not provide direct evidence of notability, but it's listed at both Internet Relay Chat and Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, and two other articles had existing redlinks to it, QuakeNet and Web chat. A redirect at least doesn't hurt. If evidence of notability can be found, then the article can be recreated. Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)