Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AustNet

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 Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AustNet[edit]

This article had a prod removed by an anonymous user stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed. I fail to see the resoning behind these statements as this article fails WP:WEB assuming IRC networks fall under this. Original prod created for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia " Also note many other IRC Networks are being proposed for deletion under notability, see IRC Network COI Virek (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed", Huh? You think by pointing out it is not very clear what Wikipedia is or isn't I am trying to hide behind a policy? WikiPolicy? WikiPolizia? I do not believe it has crossed your mind at any point to attempt to better any of the IRC Network articles you have marked prod/afd. I just noticed there may be a conflict of interest on breathing as it seems everyone editing the page is doing it, but I'm not sure where to report it! I need scissors! 61! 203.122.246.87 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - this search brings up no reliable third party coverage. -- Mark Chovain 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - its existence appears to be commercially motivated. Murtoa (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily relevant if it is commercially motivated, otherwise WP:CORP would be a hell of a lot shorter :P. Notability is the real concern here. -- Mark Chovain 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as Wikipedia continues to prove it cares little about building the sum of all human knowledge, I will be sure to expunge from my feeble mind all knowledge Wikipedia deems not noteable, rather than attempt to improve it as suggested. In just 4 days time the article will have been marked stub for 3 years. In just 4 days time the article will have existed for 3 years. Such a commercially motivated article must have made squillions in the 3 years it was neglected on this website. I just googled for AustNet and found absolutely nothing! Then I realised I suck. 203.122.246.87 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - commerciality or conflict of interest aren't the relevant points. The relevant point is notability - AustNet has not been the subject of coverage in reliable independent sources, is not groundbreaking in its field and has not won any notable awards. In the absence of an assertion of notability all that remains is a product listing, which also falls foul of WP:NOT#INTERNET. None of this is to suggest that Austnet is not important or a worthwhile service - only that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, has specific policies determining what is and is not included and this article doesn't meet them. You mention that the article could be improved rather than deleted. If you have sourced material that could improve the article by both asserting notability and referencing it, go right ahead before this AfD closes and chances are it will be saved. Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - out of all these, I used to use AustNet most back in the IRC heyday! I can't believe people want to delete this one, maybe those people never used it? It was certainly well known at the time with thousands of users for half a decade or so, and is still used today AFAIK, albiet less. I'm past IRC (don't even go there) and haven't been on in ages but from a historical IRC perspective, that template wouldn't be complete without AustNet. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (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.