Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ircII scripts


 * 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   merge to ircII. MuZemike 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of ircII scripts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This contested PROD is a list, with only three entries, of scripts for one particular IRC client. It is not independently notable as a concept, and the entries on it have no capability to be independently notable. There is a valid merge target for the content of this article, but someone familiar with that software should do that merge. If the merge is not performed, Wikipedia does not lose anything of value if this content is deleted Miami33139 (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge or expand per nom. Well prepared nomintation, best I have seen in the current series of mass-nomintations for chat software. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a list of scripts for ircII is not inherently notable and does not enhance or contribute to an understanding of ircII. Further, ircII itself is of dubious notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * merge with ircII. Clear solution, per WP:BEFORE as an alternative to deletion.  Miami, if  you don;t know enough to judge how to merge,  ask for help at the appropriate workgroup. Don;t bring it here--this is the place to discuss articles that should be deleted. this is a waste of people's time, and adds to the general process overload.   DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it should be deleted. ircII should probably be deleted as well, but it is not currently listed. The IP commenting above removed PROD which forced the issue to AfD. He is apparently knowledgeable and capable of merging it, but here we are. Miami33139 (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe all of these are covered in the book I referenced in the BitchX and PIRCH AfDs. I don't really like this article in its current form either and had planned to expand it (with references) and use it to build a larger article about scripts for IRC clients. The subject of IRC scripts is a huge (and quite notable) topic in and of itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to the IRC WikiProject's sandbox as WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/List of ircII scripts until we can decide how to expand or merge it. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge. There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to another article which is already sorely lacking in the reliable sources department. JBsupreme (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that's not what undue weight usually means--undue weight is giving undue importance to a particular instance of a general topic. Combining two weak articles to make a stronger one is, on the other hand, a recommended procedure and a good way of handling problems like this. Not that it necessarily applies here, but my  experience in other subject areas is that objections to combining weak articles has sometimes indicated a desire to decrease coverage of an entire broad topic based on notions of intrinsic importance.    DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with ircII as the content is of potential value for those studying same.   -T od Wul ff    03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with ircII, seems the obvious solution. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment my main concern with just blindly merging these into ircII is that these scripts are not strictly ircII scripts. All of these also work with EPIC and many other ircII-like clients. The scripts mentioned in this list and several others are covered in chapter 11 of this book as well:

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2009 (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.