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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mibbit[edit]

Mibbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Hello, I am the user behind the ip 173.66.142.225. My PROD of this article was removed as vandalism. I would like to nominate this article because it has insufficient sources to indicate that this subject passes WP:WEB and there has been insufficient coverage of this to indicate that it is notable. I would also like to note that this article was created by a single purpose account and another user who has been spam username blocked. Myownusername (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Myownusername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
— 173.66.142.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. It has three sources which are perfectly sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you counting the iPhone store or one of the external links? Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete at this time. Of the "three sources", one is obviously good (CNET), one is questionable (Ajaxian, a blog, I'm not familiar with whether it really carries any weight), and one doesn't count at all (the app's page at the iPhone store is essentially a first party source and makes no assertion of notability,, all it proves is that this is an iPhone app; not all iPhone apps are notable). So we're left with, at most, 1.5 sources. I don't believe that 5 paragraphs in CNET and a blog entry demonstrate that this meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Add a few more sources and I'd be inclined to keep. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, and maybe this is just me, but the article in its current form reads a little bit like an advertisement. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to weak keep based on the given rewrite. While the sourcing still isn't great, the article as it stands now seems good enough to me. Oren0 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources as required by WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, changing !vote based on recent rewrite, meets GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I looked for sources to possibly expand this for DYK, and found only the sources in the article. Good luck.... Synergy 20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Just wanted to point out that chatzilla sux, use pidgin. Gurch (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Oren0 and Ukexpat. Changing to Keep - per the rewrite.— Dædαlus ^Contribs— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and heavily revise. CNET is a major source and the blog Ajaxian is a legitimate tech news source with scores of professional-quality articles. The Webmonkey mention (in "Further Reading") is arguably a third, but it's marginal. I agree we should not count the product pages. We have two strong sources and one weak source; if we could just find a better third source this would be a strong keep. As for the writing, that is obviously in need of improvement, but quality is no reason to delete as opposed to revising. -moritheil^Talk 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to revise. This isn't notable and there is nothing we can do about it. Myownusername (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were inherently non-notable, there would be no improvement possible. However, as stated above, the problem is merely that the article doesn't happen to cite enough sources. See below for additional sources found by Ironholds. -moritheil^Talk 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cnet is an okay source although it's just one of the blogs so not their best reference of all time. Ajaxian may have a 'professional quality articles' it doesn't make them an RS. The webmonkey other then not appearing to be an RS, is almost a trivial mention. So one minor source is all we have. Hardly qualifies as notable. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Per the 2 strong strong sources that already exist. Agree that it can use more. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination. I simply cannot WP:AGF based on the contribution history and actions of the nominator, see Special:Contributions/173.66.142.225 and Special:Contributions/Myownusername.
  Nominator attempted both CSD A7 (web) and CSD G11 (spam) for an established article, [1] [2] neither of which were applicable. A7 does not apply to software and this article is obviously not spam.
  Immediately after these two CSDs were declined [3] 173.66.142.225 then attempted a ((prod)) [4] which was also rightly removed as vandalism. [5]
  173.66.142.225 also reported an older account/user at WP:UAA [6] and managed to get that user banned. [7]
  This article was not created by User:Mibbit as 173.66.142.225 has revised [8] [9] his nomination above to allege, see the article's revision history. The article was originally created by User:Axod. [10] [11] A CSD A7 was attempted twice when the article was created. The article was userfied, [12] rewritten, moved back to article space, and has since been edited by many other editors.
  173.66.142.225 also left an odd reply on User:Mixwell's talk page when he was warned for abusing CSD/prod. [13]
  173.66.142.225 / Myownusername has gone on to try to create trouble for other users on WP:AN/I when they attempted to deal with the blatant vandalism and disruption. [14] [15] Notice that the nominator referred to this as Rollback and called for outright banning of an established and reliable editor even though it was clear his prod was reverted with Twinkle.
  These are not the actions of a novice or newbie editor nor are these actions I would expect from any experienced or established editor.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attacking the motives of the nominator is not an argument to keep, and a procedural argument doesn't make much sense given that several editors have !voted delete. Nothing in your lengthy diatribe addresses the issue at hand: does the subject of the article meet WP:N and/or WP:WEB? Oren0 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nor is AfD for cleanup. WP:WEB does not apply to software, note the multiple CSD A7 declines. Mibbit is notable for being an extremely popular and widely used Ajax based IRC client and as far as I know the only one of its kind. The only thing remotely close is Chatzilla, which is a browser component. Tothwolf (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The facts that it may be popular or that you consider it to be unique do not imply notability. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources does. And I don't believe this article meets that standard. Oren0 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 does indeed apply to this since it is a website. And your attacks against me are irrelevant to the this discussion. Myownusername (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of notability at all in the text of the article - as someone earlier pointed out, it does read something like an advertisement. Why is it worthy of inclusion? Perhaps it could be improved/rewritten totally to conform to criteria. Martinp23 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered trying to improve it. However, the fact that the subject is not notable is an irredeemable flaw in this article, so it must be deleted. Myownusername (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were inherently non-notable, there would be no improvement possible. However the problem stated by Martinp23 is merely that the article doesn't happen to assert its own notability. This is a flaw that can be fixed with editing. See below for additional sources found by Ironholds and Tothwolf that support notability. -moritheil^Talk 03:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: additional sources can be found here and here. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: two more sources are MW:Extension:Mibbit and here. Tothwolf (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: more sources at Appscout, Tech-Buzz, Killer Startups, and Lifehacker. There is a lot of coverage of this program. -moritheil^Talk 03:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The most reliable source is a CNET blog. All the sources seem to be blogs. Notability here is weak, but not totally nonexistent. --John Nagle (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CNET source is a reliable source and is not a simple blog. CNET's writers and editors use official blogs on portions of their website. Those blogs are generally considered reliable sources because those writers are well known experts in their respective fields. CNET's Webware.com site traditionally covered Web 2.0 topics although much of the site has since been merged into news.cnet.com.
    Webware, specifically Josh Lowensohn's articles have been used as references in many other Wikipedia articles, including:
    • Dailymotion [16]
    • Docudesk [17]
    • Google Finance [18]
    • Kaneva [19]
    • Ma.gnolia [20]
    • Microsoft Songsmith [21]
    • Pdfvue [22]
    • toonlet [23]
      --Tothwolf (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wired.com source currently in the Further reading section can also be considered a reliable source and used as a reference. Like CNET's Webware, the Webmonkey monkey_bites "blog" (formerly blog.wired.com/monkeybites/) from Wired News is written by writers who are also well known experts in their respective fields. monkey_bites, much like the like CNET's Webware, also tends to focus mainly on Web 2.0 topics. Put simply, this is the Wired.com equivalent of CNET's Webware.com. Tothwolf (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously merits retention as a link to List of IRC clients and the rest does not require deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A7 does certainly not apply., This is a IRC program, not a website. Computer programs are not covered by A7, even though they may use a website as part of their operation. I agree with Tothwolf that the nominator is a transparently clear Single Purpose Account. . DGG (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've completely rewritten the article and it now makes a firm assertion of notability. Tothwolf (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG based on the revisions during this discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its current version a sufficiently referenced article, showingn otability. DGG (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep current version, this is way better. TheAE talk/sign 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has been considerably improved; refs assert notability etc  Chzz  ►  22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I acknowledge the reversal of my closure, and see no problem with it, though I still believe that this AfD can be closed at any time. In any case, there is a firm indication of notability, per the vast multitude of sources, including technical review by reliable sources, of the topic. Great job rescuing the article, Tothwolf. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient sources have been added to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, and also the bad faith nomination by now indef-blocked user.  GARDEN  20:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, as garden said, by a now indef-blocked user. Until It Sleeps 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. One (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (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.