Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet Relay Chat bots


 * 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, with a merge discussion encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Internet Relay Chat bots

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory service, and that includes non-notable scripts and bots. The bulk of the red links became red links as a result of separate AFD discussions, lists are not intended to be an end-run around our notability guidelines. JBsupreme ( talk ) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: An awful lot of IRC-related articles have been proposed for deletion in the past few days: Comparison of IRC clients, Colloquy, various other articles on specific IRC clients (more examples of the "separate AfD discussions" JBsupreme mentions). I think it would benefit WP if there was some general discussion and consensus around how to cover the topic as a whole, rather than just randomly/non-systematically nominating specific articles for deletion.  I'm concerned that the latter approach, focusing on individual articles without thinking about the larger context, could have the unintended effect of hollowing out WP's coverage of IRC. Jd4v15 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already an Internet Relay Chat bot article, general coverage of the topic can take place there.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then instead of deleting we should merge the article under discussion into that main article (although I also think Arsenikk makes a good case for keep below). After all, Internet Relay Chat bot notably lacks any mention of specific bots that are currently widely used, presumably because it has been relying on List of Internet Relay Chat bots to provide that information.  If you're going to propose List of Internet Relay Chat bots for deletion because you think it's a directory, the least you could do is take the good bits and put them in Internet Relay Chat bot first; otherwise that information just gets lost, which benefits no one.
 * But you haven't addressed my actual point, which is that a heck of a lot of IRC-related articles (not just the one under discussion) are being proposed for deletion in a non-obvious way that ignores the bigger picture. The current approach is going to damage Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if there were a comparative "List of ..." for every class of software, and then the vast majority of deletion discussions for non-notable could be answered with "merge to list" rather like "merge to album/band" for a song. The solution to the red links is to de-link the names in the list article. Sussexonian (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are only two currently valid entries on the list. This isn't a loss to WP. Miami33139 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A list of software which performs a similar task, where the information can be verified and it is presented in a NPOV and encyclopedic way is acceptable. I notice that a all the red articles I checked were prod-deleted, which unfortunately involves a considerably less extensive process than through AfD. In the latter, normally several people will search to try to either establish or disestablish notability. This is rarely the case for prods; I am simply not convinced that there are so few notable IRC bots. All a bot needs is a few articles around the web in nerdy news outlets, and they will be fine. Even if most of the entries not notable, this list does not constitute a directory as long as it is discriminate in some way; there is not rule to say that a list on Wikipedia must consist of only items which are notable in themselves, as long as the whole is notable, and I hope no-one believes the concept of a IRC bot to be non-notable. Arsenikk (talk)  10:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been no activity on this AfD for 4-5 days and it seems to me there is no consensus: those who spoke up in favor of deletion have not responded to Arsenikk's points, which seem worthy of serious consideration. I'm not sure what the appropriate next step is (close the AfD? ask for an outside opinion?), so I'm commenting again to draw the attention of someone more knowledgeable. Jd4v15 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe the argument above, that the list being composed mostly of red links leads to deletion, is wrong.  The criteria for lists do not require that entries have individual articles, and the criteria for notability apply to individual articles not to every fact within an article.
 * Merge to Internet Relay Chat bot. Neither the article nor this list is long enough to require separate treatment. Once merged, the list can be edited, expanded, or removed, as appropriate, through the normal editing process. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge with Internet Relay Chat bot to a section of Client-server and keep List of Internet Relay Chat bots. The IRC Client/Computing article (aka the list of IRC bots) does have significant potential to develop into an article that focus on the various features of IRC that makeup the culture of the net. (e.g. Chatroom, Hackers, LAN IRC Bots Culture, Botnet, HotSpots...etc.) --75.154.186.6 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you just said is totally irrelevant to WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that compare functionality e.g. Comparison of video player software section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or List of free massively multiplayer online games. The article merely present the article in a different structure to assist users in visualization and help introduce other knowledge aspect such as history of development, current challenges and other insightful sources that can be added. (Nice try in trying to fool other wikipedians for your discrimination bias and group synthesis conditioning, unfortunately the truth will remain the truth). - I seriously doubt you even check the article responsibly, likewise to every other users in wikipedia who constantly make unconstructive per claims while unable to provide any reference and evidence at all with a structural hierarchy of presentation in paragraph, short list form, tables...etc. --173.183.103.112 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep a standard type of article. This is not a directory of every such one known, but a discussion of the important ones. That's selective & discriminating.    DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not really. If we were to to be selective and reduce this list down to the only two which are important (in Wikipedia terms) we would be left with a whopping two bots left to compare.  (!)    JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with DGG. It's got a good criteria for inclusion, has a full table instead of some mere list, and has easy room for expansion. My concern would be that the list of notable bots is small, making the need for the list moot, but I'd rather give it some time to fill in rather than throw it out now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 13 February 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.