Deletion of Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination)

Comment: This list is a valuable information source, which is the purpose of a list according to . Maybe it needs cleaning up, maybe not - but as someone said, this is not the place for cleanup. Also I'd love to see a real explanation about how this is indiscriminate. The inclusion criteria is explained in the title fgs! Is it the red links? All that means is you have opportunities to improve the wiki!  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: per  2.4: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course", and because nobody besides the nominator asked for wholesale deletion. I had closed this as a duplicate discussion of the talk page discussion, also intiated by JBsupreme: Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#How is this list discriminate?, but someone here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FComparison_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients_%282nd_nomination%29&action=historysubmit&diff=340949146&oldid=340906721 thought this exercise in futility should continue. There's also Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#A way forward|a RfC going on to decide a criteria for inclusion, which I hope will draw outside input, as the long term combatants are obviously deadlocked
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)

Comment: quoting myself verbatim from the previous AfD: the article is much more than a directory, provides lots of useful -and often sourced, even maybe if not as thoroughly as it could be (but that's grounds for |improvement,not deletion) information about a lot of notable software. There is nothing in policy/guidelines against this article. Also: Far from being an "indiscriminate directory listing", it is an exceptionally thorough and complete set of comparison tables. I cannot understand where is the "indiscriminateness". Moreover, the nom has already nominated the article less than 3 months ago, when it was speedy kept -renominating now is akin to |forum shopping and the AfD should be closed per : ''Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, '''especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.''''' (emphasis mine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:FORUMSHOP||WP:NOTAGAIN)