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

Comment: Wikipedia is not about creating and enforcing rules, it is creating and improving articles. (Hence .) We have lots of unsung but extremely good Comparison-of-&lt;products&gt; articles. Such articles consist of tables, meaning that some of the rules for normal (prose-format) articles cannot be applied without compromising them. So there does have to be some loosening of some of our rules for comparison articles (unless you want to argue for banning all comparison articles, in which case I say you have no idea what Wikipedia is about and should cease editing immediately.)This article could use some improvement, but that is no reason to delete it. Indeed, the chances of someone working on improving it would be improved if people would stop trying to get it deleted on the basis of excessively creative wikilawyering
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a software catalog. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Wikipedia is not a comparison service. |Standalone lists should have "membership criteria based on reliable sources." No sources here except maybe some self-published ones. Much of data on this list is original research. These problems with article are systemic and cannot be fixed. If sources appeared article would not look like it does now. New author should start it completely over based on the sources. Deletion of this OR material would not be useful to a new author
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: per . As clearly shown by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Nominator is the same nominator of the last AfD, which had no other !votes to delete.  Nominator raises no new reasons for deletion.  Perhaps if the OP disagreed with the consensus, he could have taken it to deletion discussion (though I suspect there would be few there who would agree with him).   could be followed & our deletion policy notes that "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)