Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kickban


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kickban

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

notability has not been demonstrated in any way. wikipedia is not a help manual for irc commands Theserialcomma (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea  08:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Here, too: Verifiability is not the problem (I'll leave it at a pointer at google books), almost all material in the article is verifiable and uncontentious. WP:N is the problem, which is why I suggested a merge. A proper merge target here is probably ban (law). I note that Kick (chat room jargon) is a soft redirect to wiktionary these days, that is the very least that we should have here, too, it's a likely and valid search term. Amalthea  11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is not sourced. Article fails to explain how a "kickban" differs from other forms of "ban." The possible grounds for a ban are not relevant.  Also, this AfD may be improperly formed as the link in the article's template to the deletion discussion is red. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And how does deletion make the distinction between "ban" and "kickban" clearer? Wouldn't a merge to ban (law) help with that? Amalthea  11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. It's a trivial article and best left as a mention in an IRC article. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that this subject probably merits a one or two sentence mention in another article. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (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.