Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charybdis (IRCd)

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. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charybdis (IRCd)[edit]

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

The prod that a member added was contested by the article starter with the comment, "I think XFD would be a better venue for this. In my opinion, this seems sufficiently notable, since it is used by a number of networks. I will work on improving this article." Being used by a number of networks does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's notability can be compared to that of UnrealIRCd. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 12:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notable also. Joe Chill (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See that article's XfD discussion. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated it for AfD again. It was kept because of one sentence in a book. Joe Chill (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet GNG. Although the references may not be the best, it seems like there is potential to improve the article. Also, the nom reason seems very much like "just not notable". — Waterfox ^~talk~ 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is exactly why I linked to WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a rundown of the sources -
  1. http://hg.atheme.org/charybdis/rev/55f974346090 is just a bunch of code.
  2. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/#charybdis is a personal website.
  3. http://stats.efnet.org/ is just software statistics.
  4. http://www.ratbox.org/authors.shtml is not independent of the subject.
  5. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/charybdis-oper-guide/oprivs.htm is a personal website.
  6. http://www.stack.nl/~jilles/irc/charybdis-oper-guide/cmodes.htm is a personal website.
  7. http://www.ircd-hybrid.org/fullhist.php is just a bunch of code.
  8. http://web1.sorcery.net/old/content/view/110/404/ is not a reliable source.
  9. http://www.esper.net/migration.php is a dead link.
  10. http://freenode.net/seven.shtml is just a short description of the software.
  11. http://staticbox.net/about is an About Us page. Joe Chill (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notes:
    1. Has the charybdis-3.3.0 tag.
    2. While it is a personal website, it's owned by one of the project's core developers.
    3. placeholder
    4. placeholder
    5. It is hosted on a personal website, but this is just an independent compilation of the community-maintained SGML documentation bundled with the code.
    6. Same.
    7. It isn't code, it's a changelog. Near the bottom, you'll find the sourced information.
    8. Explain why it isn't?
    9. Was up when I wrote the article. Added a backup source, and leaving old ref because it might come back up.
    10. It says that it's a branch of the charybdis ircd, which is the information to be sourced. I don't see how length is relevant.
    11. So what? "We use the latest version of Charybdis ircd..."
  - — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. Which is still not significant coverage.
      2. Okay then. A personal website by someone that is related to the subject. Definitely doesn't show notability.
      3. placeholder
      4. placeholder
      5. Personal website. With code. Yep. Non-notable.
      6. Personal website. With code. Yep. Non-notable.
      7. Changelog. Ok. Still not significant coverage.
      8. It is not reliable because it is an IRC blog.
      9. "Welcome to The EsperNet IRC Network, a place of friends, discussion and fun. Since 1996, EsperNet has offered a home for chatters from around the globe." = unreliable.
      10. Length is relevant to notability at times. This is one of those times when only one paragrah of coverage can probably be used a source.
      11. Good for them. Still doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as original prodder, for the same reason as my prod. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - JNN?. Also, I like the wikilogism "prodder". :P — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources listed above represent significant coverage in reliable independent sources. For software like this, I often look to see if it's mentioned in any books, but I got zero hits in a Google books search.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2011 (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.