Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScrollZ


 * 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. W.marsh 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ScrollZ

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Much as I hate to do it, I must nominate this article for deletion. It has not established notability, and zero reliable sources (making it entirely original research). For full disclosure, flier (the author of scrollz) and I have been friends for at least a decade (probably longer).
 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The notability of this software is very much in doubt. -- Dougie WII 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator is currently in an edit war regarding a detail in the article, that he was informed by the author of the project (flier) he is wrong about. After constantly reverting my edits knowing he is putting false information into the wiki, he also blanked the talk page where I showed how he was wrong, and now he has nominated this article for deletion, seemingly out of spite. This small edit of trying to fix the error in the article at the request of the project maintainer was my first contribution to the wikipedia project, but now that I see there are people here who abuse power and cause drama, I don't think I will be making any more contributions. This is very sad. --J.maurice 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) — J.maurice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I also question whether this article was submitted on AfD in good faith, but that still doesn't change the fact that no notability is clearly asserted. -- Dougie WII 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - With regards to claims of an "edit war" -- I made one change one time. I discussed the matter with flier, the author of ScrollZ, who informed me that there is no, nor will there ever be, an independant reliable source to make any claims in this article verifiable.  An unsigned irclog posted to a talk page is nowhere near our reliable source guidelines.  Beyond those (fatal) problems, there is no claim to any sort of notability, as evidenced by the WP:RS and WP:OR policy violations.  The issue became completely moot when I discovered those violations; thus I nominated for deletion.  Hope this clears things up.  /Blaxthos 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Though I hate to admit it, the rationale for deletion seems fairly valid. There are very few citations and Google only generates about 24,000 hits for 'ScrollZ', compared to about 202,000 for 'ircII', 900,000 for 'BitchX', 1,300,000 for 'Irssi', and so on. Rhapsody Scarlet 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - The two articles you mentioned, BitchX and ircII have zero citations or sources, so if you delete this article for lack of sources, you should delete those articles also, under the same logic. We're taking about an IRC client, the fact that "only" 24,000 webpages mention it on IRC-related sites is notable in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.maurice (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 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.