Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of IRCds


 * 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 11:02Z 

Comparison of IRCds

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wholly unsuited to Wikipedia: While I suppose that the bare listing of facts and laying them side-by-side is not in itself "original reseach" it certainly feels that way. No reliable sources are cited "comparing" these IRC entities. the "Not a weblist" mantra appears to be egregiously violated by the massive number of external links to other-wise unnotable IRC entities. The use of tables, while lovely and indicative of someone slaving over this, also means that it's completely n00b-a-phobic as well. This may be good information, and may belong somewhere, but I'm unconvinced it belongs here. Wikibooks? brenneman 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear this belongs here either, per WP:OR. Delete. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Verifiable, useful.  Consider it a glorified list.  See also Comparison of cricket bowlers, Comparison of file comparison tools, Comparison of temperature scales, Comparison of Toyota hybrids, et al. -- Plutor talk 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwikie to Wikibooks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki. Although it's potentially verifiable, it's WP:OR because of the choice of what criteria are important and relevant and how they are defined. It's also a link farm and spam magnet. If it must be kept, all non-notable entries and external links need ruthlessly removing. CiaranG 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it is opinion.-MsHyde 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. See also Comparison of file systems - comparisons like this are common practice.
 * Keep even the nominator thinks that it isn't OR, though proposing to delete it because it "feels like OR." It fails none of the WP criteria. DGG 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. An invaluable resource to any server administrator trying to locate a suitable IRCd, as for trimming, it is probably worth separating out the historical ones into a separate article to avoid cluttering. Danielharmsworth 11:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But is Wikipedia an encylopedia or a resource for server administrators? WP:NOT CiaranG 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopaedia, which is a resource for everybody, including server administrators. As for the reference to WP:NOT, This is a consolidation of verifiable information into a meaningful format, in this case, a comparison, not a list. Danielharmsworth 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research, as I understand in Wikipedia, does not include gathering information provided by product websites, independent reviews, usage of services utilising the software or examining publicly available source code and documentation. It especially does not cover criteria considered important to developers and users familiar with a subject that can and will be added to and adjusted over time - if you consider yourself to be an expert on the subject why not try adding important criteria? Should Comparison of wiki software likewise be deleted because it contains a huge amount of external links, a set of criteria that may not be obviously important to one not familiar with the subject and may attract links and spam? As for unverifiable: one need only connect to an IRC network utilising the software, or better yet: download/purchase a copy of the software to install and try, or read through the source code (if available), that is assuming you are unhappy with project/product website feature lists or questioning the authors - this applies to any article about a piece of software. -- Southen 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article was started due to the deficit of reliable unbiased sources comparing IRCds unaffiliated with individual products or projects. Sources are provided in the form of external links to those IRC entities homepages - admittedly it may be more blunt to link directly to source repositories or file downloads. I am confused as to how this article could be described as a weblist with the bulk of it being devoted to "laying facts side-by-side".
 * Comparison of wiki software is an interesting example, because each entry is clearly notable (at least until consensus says otherwise) by virtue of the fact that it has an article. If you were to apply the same logic to Comparison of IRCds you'd be left comparing not very much to not very much. Perhaps some of the IRCDs there don't have articles but should, or perhaps they do and I can't find them (they're not wikilinked, so I assume not anyway), but either way, I still don't see how the majority of those are notable in any way. Regarding the original research point, the information gathered may well come from elsewhere (although I doubt if anywhere but primary sources, because the entries are mostly non-notable), but I maintain that the way it is compiled and gathered (e.g. the choice of what features to list) constitutes original research. CiaranG 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "deficit of reliable [...] sources" when used as the justification for creating an article really should be setting off some mental alarm bells, shouldn't it? - brenneman  02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would set off mental alarm bells, when taken out of context, but as southen has stated it is not a deficit of reliable sources of information regarding any of the specific entries, its a deficit of reliable comparisons. Danielharmsworth 04:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to labour an obvious point, in particular since I say it in the nomination, but this article is Comparison of IRCds. If there ae not reliable sources on comparisons, than this article can't exist. -  brenneman  01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources on comparisons? lets have a look at what is is for a moment, a presentation of facts about each individual entry laid out in a manner as to allow a reader to quickly see what features are available on each IRCd and which features are not as compared to other IRCd's, now given this, what need is there to have other reliable comparisons when there are no new facts introduced or any determinations made by arranging the information into this specific structure. Now i do agree that the features compared should be determined through consensus to avoid any bias. Danielharmsworth 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't believe we need reliable sources that actually compare these subjects in order to retain this article. A (comprehensive) listing of details like this is appropriate as long as the presentation does not implicitly or explicitly show an unsourced relationship between the subjects. This is fundamentally different than something like Dead Playboy Playmates, as that article is 1) not comprehensive of all the comparable details of Playboy Playmates, 2) presents a significant amount of speculative and unsourced information, and 3) implies there is some sort of relationship between the deaths of Playboy Playmates. --- RockMFR 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.