Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostmask
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to IRC. Black Kite 22:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hostmask[edit]
- Hostmask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article, like Vhost_(IRC), makes no attempt to demonstrate notability. i don't think it ever will either. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge vhost into this - It would be quite possible to merge this and vhost (IRC), which this being I think the more relevant term. There's no reason to keep them separate, but there's enough going on here for an article. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - and where is notability demonstrated? all i see are trivial mentions. this is not worthy of an article Theserialcomma (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea 08:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i hate to be the one to wp:burden you, but where are these easily found sources? a vote with a fallacious argument isn't a very useful vote. merge somewhere? there are easily found sources but no one can find them? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden? What contentions material do you see in the article? That's what I meant with pure technical facts being easily sourced; I know very little about IRC concepts, but even I can vouch that most content in the article is true, and with established technical concepts there is little distance between truth and verifiability. It's not like this is a disputed or obscure topic, Wikimedia projects are directly describing hostmasks and cloaking of them at e.g. WP:IRC or meta:IRC/Cloaks, and fr-wiki, de-wiki, and it-wiki have a standalone article on the topic. Verifiability is in no way the problem here. And in any case, when you reply with WP:BURDEN, I'm not sure you tried sourcing it before nominating it, or considered a merge instead. A trivial google search would have left you with 15 books mentioning the concept.
Anyway, I've added some sources to this one. As I've said, I can agree that a standalone article is undue for this concept, and that it should be merged somewhere. I'm not sure about Vhost (IRC), personally I'd probably go up to IRC itself. But a complete deletion is overkill. Amalthea 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- oh, sorry. i guess you didn't see the part of wp:burden to which i was referring. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. the burden is on you to find reliable third party sources if you want this article kept. the onus is not on me to find sources that i cannot find. you've not satisfied wp:burden yet. requesting that this unnotable subject should be merged into another unnotable subject doesn't help anything. redirect it to IRC maybe. but "...merge into somewhere" - No. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again:
- Yes, you should attempt to look for sourcing before nominating an article for deletion.
- I've added four sources discussing and defining the topic. Do you require more?
- If I'm suggesting a merge, how would you place the burden on me to show notability of the topic? I haven't claimed that the topic was notable. I claim that the content is verifiable.
- Merging verifiable uncontentious content, even if it's not sourced with inline citations, is perfectly OK, while it's obviously preferable to have cited content.
- Amalthea 20:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't know why you'd assume i didn't look for significant coverage in third party reliable sources. i didn't find any. neither did you. neither has anyone else. i'm not going to waste my time adding crap sources that do not demonstrate notability. this whole article should be represented in one sentence in IRC, but that's it. this is not a legitimate wikipedia article, and it never will be. all this merge talk is just filibustering to keep something that is unworthy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you didn't look for sources because when I said that the encyclopedic material in the article was sourceable – no more, no less – you asked me to provide those sources and said that no one can find them, while they could be found by clicking on the "Books" link in your nomination.
But yet again, not once have I claimed the topic was notable, and I never sought to show it. My second sentence here began with "Not standalone-article material at this point". I'm not quite sure why you continue to argue with me of all people, a merge to IRC like I proposed will result in a redirect and a few-sentence summary of a hostmask there.
Amalthea 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- when i nominate something for AFD, the sole criterion is whether it passes notability. i don't care about verifiability. notability is the criterion for inclusion here. i won't waste my time adding trivial mentions to an article that will never be notable. so yes, you're right, i didn't look to add trivial mentions. i looked for widespread, third party, in depth coverage. i didn't find any. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you didn't look for sources because when I said that the encyclopedic material in the article was sourceable – no more, no less – you asked me to provide those sources and said that no one can find them, while they could be found by clicking on the "Books" link in your nomination.
- i don't know why you'd assume i didn't look for significant coverage in third party reliable sources. i didn't find any. neither did you. neither has anyone else. i'm not going to waste my time adding crap sources that do not demonstrate notability. this whole article should be represented in one sentence in IRC, but that's it. this is not a legitimate wikipedia article, and it never will be. all this merge talk is just filibustering to keep something that is unworthy. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again:
- oh, sorry. i guess you didn't see the part of wp:burden to which i was referring. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. the burden is on you to find reliable third party sources if you want this article kept. the onus is not on me to find sources that i cannot find. you've not satisfied wp:burden yet. requesting that this unnotable subject should be merged into another unnotable subject doesn't help anything. redirect it to IRC maybe. but "...merge into somewhere" - No. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burden? What contentions material do you see in the article? That's what I meant with pure technical facts being easily sourced; I know very little about IRC concepts, but even I can vouch that most content in the article is true, and with established technical concepts there is little distance between truth and verifiability. It's not like this is a disputed or obscure topic, Wikimedia projects are directly describing hostmasks and cloaking of them at e.g. WP:IRC or meta:IRC/Cloaks, and fr-wiki, de-wiki, and it-wiki have a standalone article on the topic. Verifiability is in no way the problem here. And in any case, when you reply with WP:BURDEN, I'm not sure you tried sourcing it before nominating it, or considered a merge instead. A trivial google search would have left you with 15 books mentioning the concept.
- i hate to be the one to wp:burden you, but where are these easily found sources? a vote with a fallacious argument isn't a very useful vote. merge somewhere? there are easily found sources but no one can find them? Theserialcomma (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable unless good sources are found. If this technical information is easily sourced, please provide sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as we customarily do. The idea that every concept or thing mentioned in a merged article must be notable is absurd, as long as it meets WP:V. WP:N is very explicitly not about content of articles, and it is hard to see how an encyclopedia could be written otherwise. It's like saying every word in a sentence must be a complete sentence by itself. I am a little surprised anyone could say it in good faith, if they've thought about it. It would imply that we could not say in the bio of a notable person what department of a college he majored in, because very few college departments are not notable, or that he served in X company in the army, because most such companies are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the idea that every article subject must be notable is not absurd. this article subject is not notable. if something is to be salvaged from this article which is verifiable, then do so. the article itself is not notable, so a merge vote without saying where to merge it is absurd Theserialcomma (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2010 (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.