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

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 No consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd[edit]

Based on WP:RS, SearchIRC does not constitute a reliable source, it's content is based on spiders probing IRC Networks, and may be sent false information or manipulated, also, a large number of the references just links directly to the developers comments / news articles. Although "Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise." does make a reference to UnrealIRCd, it's just that, a comment made in passing and has no real notability (WP:Notability). And to finish off, Reference number 5 (Dalnet History) appears to make no actual reference to UnrealIRCd.

This article has been deleted before due to it's general lack of Notability, and has been brought back with the claim that it is in fact notable, with 17 references, none of which appear to fall into the Wikipedia guidelines or can be classed as valid sources. FrostyCoolSlug (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I agree that UnrealIRCd does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources can be found providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. In other words, per WP:N. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above and references 11 thru 15 are not related to the page in any way but refer to other ircds Braindigitalis (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because (God forbid!) the article already lists multiple independent reliable sources. —Giggy 09:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many of these sources are notable as per wikipedia guidelines? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please re-read the reason for deletion, 7 of the sources listed are NOT independent, 7 others are NOT reliable sources (Under WP:RS), 2 of the sources are NOT relevant to the subject at hand (2 pages on OTHER IRCds), and the final source is NOT notable (Reference made in passing). All these non-relevant and non-notable sources have been added since the articles original original deletion to make it LOOK notable. 90.193.254.237 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I beg to differ about SearchIRC. Spidering is a reliable way to get data. It is just as reliable, perhaps more so, than if a team of reporters/scientists/whoever decided to find out and publish which IRCd was used the most. I would also like to take the time to point out that Braindigitalis and Nenolod have a POV when it comes to this for a few reasons:
1. They both worked on another IRCd, InspIRCd, at one time or another.
2. Their IRCd's article was deleted.
No where in WP:RS, as stated in the nomination, did I find anything about sources that use spidering being inherently unreliable because they do spider. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please. I've basically worked on every IRCd there is. My working on InspIRCd does not give me any particular POV. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more references there than only SearchIRC (which, is probably the most reliable place to document a lot of the statistics). Just because the article isn't perfect source-wise is not a reason to delete it. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is my opinion worth any less than any other wikipedians, just because i am an expert in this field? Not to mention, the sources used by unrealircd here are the same sources used by the InspIRCd article, which was successfully deleted. Not to point out the obvious here, but if these sources were not acceptable for that article (please read its AFD page) then they are not acceptable here, either. It is plainly obvious to me that none of these ircd pages or services pages have any place on wikipedia, as none are WP:Notable. Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see reliable sources, although they may not be the best. Deleting it won't make it any better. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stwalkerster, if this is the case then i recommend different sources than searchirc. As stated here in the guides for notability (1) use of statistical data should be considered a primary source and avoided, can anyone recommend any good secondary sources such as books? Brain Digitalis ^{(Talk) (Edits)} 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you suggest any sources other than SearchIRC for that statistical data which are going to be as reliable, without original research? I think there will be problems in gathering that. Therefore SearchIRC is likely to be the best source of that available, and so is unavoidable. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree ;-) One book source already exists for this page, although only a passing mention if one exists others may too? In my humble opinion, book sources and notable news sources far outweigh searchirc (which often is broken, and was perpetually broken as far as ircd version statistics go) for very long periods of time, and there must be other book sources out there. Such sources would definitely change my vote to a keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So be it:
        Mutton, Paul (2004). IRC Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools. O'Reilly. p. 360. ISBN 059600687X. Retrieved 2008-08-07. One of the most popular and full-featured ircds is Unreal.
      - -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I don't really think one sentence in one book meets notability requirements for Wikipedia. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 22:40, 8 August 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.