Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsyBNC (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 delete. The discussion demonstrates convincingly that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Userfication declined because what the article needs is sourcing, and that does not require userfication.  Sandstein  06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PsyBNC

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
PsyBNC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, sourced to newsgroups and documentation. WIkipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You didn't add the AfD tag correctly, go back and add it correctly.
  • Keep, clearly notable, no reason at all to delete. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced. Some of the sources listed (the ones assoicated with the project's own website) are not independant enough to establish notability but these 3 [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]] are. I don't understand why this article would ever have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do hope you are kidding. Ubuntu help documentation is effectively self-published. The University of Waterloo is primarily a mere mention, including this software when they found that irc based botnets have been found on their network. Freshports is regurgitation from the developer, nothing more, and not independent. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I am really not kidding. If you don't like those 3 how about these that were not used as sources by the article: [4], [5]. I am sure I could find more if I were willing to sort through all 386,000 google hits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was hoping so, because those new sources are entirely not reliable. Everything2 is user-submitted content. Astahost is user-submitted content AND that content is a straight copy-paste from the Ubuntu docs. User submitted content is not reliable as a reference, and is absolutely not relevant to establish notability. Please read WP:N and WP:RS to understand notability and reliable sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You appear to be more familiar than I am with sources in this subject area, and I am perhaps having more trouble telling reliable independant secondary sources from self published sources than I usuually do in other areas. Perhaps someone should revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) to help with some of this. The following sources seem reasonable to me but if you can show that they are also not independant secondary sources then perhaps you are right and there are none. The last ones I was able to find are: [6], [7], [8].
            • 1 - file.net, a malware identification and removal site, not necessarily about this software as it says "Some malware camouflage themselves as psybnc.exe", probably does nothing to establish notability. 2 - this is documentation at a minor ISP, possibly a RS as documentation, but does not establish notability. 3 - same as #2, self-help documentation from an ISP. I do not see these things as establishing notability, merely that the software exists. Miami33139 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand, solid references, software is widely used and documented. There are over 300,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the existing sources contribute to establishing notability. Google hits are not a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 83.254.210.47 -- you mention to expand; please help us to keep the article and go to it and expand it. :) Any single constructive edit would improve it to a more acceptable level, including sources; not just the AfD discussion. --Mokhov (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the advice, did some editing. Not sure what's the best way to integrate books as references, there is offline coverage in print media and magazines [9]. Linux Magazine and DMOZ reference [10] to demonstrates that psyBNC is a recognised software in the IRC bouncer category. Furthermore is this software from historical value, as the article mentions was psyBNC the first bouncer that allowed to protect your IRC nickname even when you are offline. An absolutely novelty in the late 90s after IRCnet splitted away from EFnet and nickname disputes and nickname collisions were still a regular issue. This AfD discussion is in my opinion an example why mass-nomination of software articles is a problem, the nominator didn't research the topic properly and even unintentionally is unable to include the technical and historical implications in his presentation. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Talk about bad sources. DMOZ, a user-editable site, that lists that this software exists. LinuxMag, one mention in one paragraph in an article that is not about psybnc, but about how to spot rogue processes running on a server, and psybnc is a running process on the machine. Please stop adding trivial mentions! Miami33139 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me correct this, DMOZ is not a user-editable site [11] and for example Google uses it for page rank determination (a single entry can improve a site's page rank). Linux Magazine is a well known publication and the cover story falsifies your claim that psyBNC is only sourced by newsgroups and documentation. Here is another source from Heise [12]. This is not a vote, please come forward with some evidence. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bouncers have you identified in your research? Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things. We would not tolerate such a lack of sourcing on any other subject. While I do see lots of hand waving I've yet to see convincing evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject from multiple reliable third party publications. That's how we judge notability here on Wikipedia, not by how much WP:ULIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:IAR; while the sources may be better and improved (it is a general problem for software alike), the article is not bad actually. And there are several interwikis too implying people there considered it sufficiently notable there to keep. Userfy to me if deleted. --Mokhov (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we've been ignoring the rules a bit too much here and demonstrating some sort of bias/favoritism toward internet related articles as of late. I personally find this shocking. I have no objection to you putting this in your userspace (although others might) but we certainly cannot host it in the main article space if there isn't evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bias and favoritism towards the internet? Is that aside from the fact that this is an internet based encyclopaedia edited by users via the internet, by people are are internet savvy and that the internet is possibly the most important invention of our time? I can't think why this could be... *sigh* --Hm2k (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with JBsupreme here. the fact is that there is not one single third party, reliable source here with psybnc as its topic. trivial mentions do not equal notability. this is unfortunate in situations like this, and maybe the notability policy can be updated for things like software, because i used to use psybnc (briefly - preferred the basic bnc.c), and so i can attest to the fact that it was important to hundreds of people. but that does not mean it's notable per wikipedia's standards. this vote has to be delete for the sake of the encyclopedia. this is not an indiscriminate collection of internet nostalgia Theserialcomma (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Although i know the program to be quite popular, the media coverage remains quite poor. I will have to agree that in its current state of thoroughness and sourcing, the article should go. In case the article gets deleted: If anyone wants to pick up where the article was left, i saved a copy of the article here.~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:18, 30 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PsyBNC_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069207015"