Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SlashNET


 * 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. Nominator indef blocked for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa (non-admin closure) Tothwolf (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

SlashNET

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completely lacks any significant coverage. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This survived AfD once before, and now it's been covered in a book, and is a top 40 (or top 25) network, depending on who one consults. Further sources are certainly possible, so deletion is not the obvious choice. A look at WP:BEFORE might have prevented this nomination. --Lexein (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A look at WP:BEFORE did not prevent this nomination. Not every IRC network is notable. Just because it's in the top 40, or even the top 25, does not make it notable by any means. Coverage is needed. It's been covered in a book, yes, but two pages of coverage is not significant coverage, which is needed to assert notability. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sources about IRC, such books and magazines, published around that period (1998-2003) which are not available in online, searchable form, and WP:V doesn't mandate online availability, nor that verification be easy, but I'm not going to beat this point to death. I have made the request to one editor User:Tothwolf I know who has asserted that he has some of those sources. I'm hoping he comes through. In the meantime, gah. Sometimes seven days just seems wrong for obviously arduous-to-source articles. There is a certain amount of AGF which I feel would be appropriate, in acknowledgement of that difficulty. I cannot wait for the day that the Wayback Machine itself can be directly searched, I tell you. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When that day comes, you may be able to demonstrate notability. Until that time, merely asserting that there are sources is not enough. In addition, significant coverage is needed, not passing references in books. Mythpage88 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Mythpage88 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of LiteralKa . --Tothwolf (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2012 (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.