Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snak

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snak

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

DELETE. These programs appear to be dime a dozen, but unfortunately this particular one has nothing in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications and fails all relevant notability tests. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The burden is on the article creator to demonstrate the notability of the subject via references. Wikipedia is not a software directory and should not be used to expose/promote non-notable products. Miami33139 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The burden for the references wasn't around for many years of Wikipedia's history. No one went back and added references to prove notability to the hundreds of thousands of articles that didn't have them before. Anyway, I search for it at the Google book search and Google news along with the word "Mac" and found plenty of coverage of it. Adding some to the article now. Please search a bit better before trying to delete something. Dream Focus 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just searching around the news and books you can see it mentioned in many places. I added what Cnet said about it, in an official review, that should be enough. Did anyone contact the article creator and tell them that the newer suggested guidelines say he should link to things proving its notable? He/she might've come and helped out. Dream Focus 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most popular IRC clients for the Macintosh platform. A suitable Google books search is: [1] It also receives good coverage in this book:
Charalabidis, Alex (1999-12-15). "IRCing On The Macintosh: Snak". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 64 –&#32, 66. ISBN 1-886411-29-8.
--Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is another one of the slew of AfDs about IRC clients done last week, almost every single one has been kept after discussions showing references, etc. Detail here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Continued_wikistalking/wikihounding_and_harassment#Breakdown_of_AFD_intersections if you dare. --Milowent (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tothwold @ 5:05 UTC Oct 4. Books on Macs or IRC give this coverage typically as one of three main mac clients. See Paul Mutton, IRC Hacks, O'Reilly Media: Sebastopol, 2004, pp. 13–14 who covers it as one of "three of the more popular, and more powerful, IRC clients available for the Mac OS" (p. 11) or Gene Steinberg, Mac OS 9: The Complete Reference, McGraw Hill Osborne: New York, 2000, pp. 856–857 (beginning "Two IRC clients stand out on the Mac: ircle 3.0.4 and Snak 3.1.") 86.44.36.76 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 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.