Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRCd-Hybrid


 * 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. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

IRCD-Hybrid

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.74.62 (talk)
 * If it's dead upstream does not make it any more or less notable. Additionally, last I looked, efnet still uses it on six servers, which, is also irrelevant. SQL Query me!  20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's with notable sources? They're not required, and, I'd say that while the three links back to hyb's svn or site, are plenty reliable in the context that they are used. I'll try to work on this, instead of deleting it. SQL Query me!  20:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've added several references, from many different places, and, might go back and add another dozen or so later. It is very very very easy to find references for this article due to how widespread ircd-hybrid is used, and, how popular it is / has been. Therefore, Keep. SQL Query me!  20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think maybe many of these ircd pages should be merged. Many of them cite the same references showing their shared heritage which to me says that a single longer article is maybe more fitting than a seperate page for each, if the article is to be kept at all? Brain Digitalis  (Talk) (Edits) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think (as someone who's worked with a lot of these extensively) they are sufficiently different, to warrant separate articles (except maybe ircd-ratbox / ircd-hybrid / oftc-hybrid and maybe comstud... Those are pretty darn similar, and, are just branches of each other). Either way, this article now has stacks of reliable, verifiable sources, and, dozens more could be added with great ease. I do not think a deletion discussion is the right place to figure out how/where/why to flesh out/expand/force-merge the article, and, I still believe that at this point in time, there is not a good reason to delete this article. SQL Query me!  01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe WP:Notable sources are required. Brain Digitalis  (Talk) (Edits) 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is still no such thing as notable sources. SQL Query me!  20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the nominator started two AFD's on this article in parallel. Below are the comments from the other one, which, I have redirected here. SQL Query me!  20:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, project is dead upstream, and no longer notable even on EFnet (has been replaced with ratbox on all but 2 servers). --nenolod (talk) (edits) 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed above, also a duplicate comment now. SQL Query me!  20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, No one has left a comment since the article's improvement, ergo I'm relisting it.  Wizardman  14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, nom's reasoning no longer applies. -- Cobi(t 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Encyclopedic data--Puttyschool (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion or evidence that this piece of software is in any way significant or notable. Certainly there is nothing to establish notability in the many references used in the article. --Stormie (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2008 (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.