Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwiftIRC (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Non-notable before, non-notable today. No reliable sources. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

SwiftIRC
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been deleted no less than four times previously. and still lacks a single human-generated WP:RS to demonstrate notability. That said, it was deleted long enough ago that a brief stay of execution/not using the criterion for speedy deletion may be warranted, although I doubt it. Tagged with prod, but it was removed by the author per Talk:SwiftIRC - None of the previous arguments are really dealt with there, though. MrZaius talk  14:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the comment below, note that RusNet, SlashNET, Coldfront & GameSurge meet the same criterion for deletion described above, with the exception of the previous deletions. The others seem to have Google News hits and the like that can be used to form a stronger case for note, and Rizon already is partially sourced. Any objections to widening this AfD to cover Coldfront and GameSurge? MrZaius  talk  16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, apologies if this does not follow the general guidelines for AfDs but here it goes:

My general opinion is Keep due to the fact that comparing to the other IRC networks listed on Wikipedia this article has sufficient amount of references to be kept. I am biased in this specific case due to the fact I'm an active member of the SwiftIRC community. None the less deleting this article should also result in that all the other IRC networks listed on Wikipedia should be deleted.

Quakenet, Undernet, Coldfront and GameSurge does not have any human-generated references worth mentioning and DALnet, EFnet, Rizon and SlashNET lacks references all together. The others not mention does have some proper references however they are still lacking.

SwiftIRC is comparable to the Coldfront network however Coldfront is a lot smaller and does not have sufficient references but still the article is not deleted.

As for the issue with not having any human-generated sources, since SwiftIRC is not very mainstream it is rather hard to find any notable, and reliable sources. JaGeX, creators of RuneScape, are not very keen on Fan sites/networks/Communities, unlike most other MMORPG creators. Another factor in this is that most of the userbase(SwiftIRC's and RuneScape's) is in their early teens and does not posses wits nor knowledge to publish anything that could be regarded as a notable source. Pathyyy (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — Pathyyy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument here. The fact that it is "hard to find any notable, and reliable sources" is reason enough for deletion. That said, at least two of those networks DO have at least one third party WP:RS - Combined with the bot-generated content, that's borderline-adequate to demonstrate NOTE. That's the case for Rizon, at the very least. WP:RS surely could be found for at least half of the networks mentioned above - Any others should be popped off right as well. MrZaius  talk  15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would count as a reliable source? There are thousands of references to SwiftIRC on a simple google search, most of which are from users who have channels on the network - How can anything else be more reliable than that? So what you're saying is I just need to get something like ircnews/ircjunkie to make a report on SwiftIRC to get it listed? That seems incredibly pointless. (Also regarding Rizon - I see no WP:RS on their page - the only link that goes to a site other than rizon.net contains no reference to 'Rizon'). KatlynSwift (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC) — KatlynSwift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * News/press reports are the primary RS of choice, yes. This is hardly pointless, and is the primary means of keeping fancruft & corporate spam off the wiki. MrZaius  talk  16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about being listed in mIRC's servers.ini file - The majority of the networks listed above, including SwiftIRC, are listed in it... I'd imagine mIRC must be at least somewhat of a reliable source? To be listed in the servers.ini your network has to be of at least some notability. KatlynSwift (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be wrong, according to my reading of WP:RS. There are probably a dozen networks enabled by default in it, xchat, and other popular clients. They don't universally warrant coverage. MrZaius  talk  16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't universally warrant coverage. - Could you please write so those of us who doesn't have a college degree in English can understand it as well. Please note that I consider myself quite fluent in English but I still don't understand what you try to say. Please understand that you do not have to use the most fancy terms there is to prove your point. Pathyyy (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never occurred to me that the above was anything but clear and simple - All I said was that there were many more networks listed in the default configs for many IRC clients than those few networks covered in the Wikipedia. It takes more than a hostname, a port number, or a wc of a /who * command to meet the Reliable source guideline. MrZaius  talk  16:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article does not cite reliable sources and as such does not comply with the verifiability policy. Also can't see this network meeting WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle. Anybody objecting to the presence of articles on other non-notable IRC nets should go ahead and mark them for deletion instead of arguing to keep this one. VG &#x260E; 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) and salt — recreation of deleted material tops the list of problems; other problems include lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability, article ownership problems, and potential conflict of interest issues. MuZemike (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Last deletion was long enough ago that prod seemed a reasonable step down from using CSD to allow for new sources to be found, but I haven't found any. Nom certainly wouldn't object if that's what happened. Can always break the others off into a new AfD - Noone's picking up on the proposal to pop them off via this one. MrZaius  talk  02:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasoning against it, but the fact remains that the problems apparently remain from the first time the article was deleted. It would be a very strong delete if anything else; however, given the history of this article, I feel that that whomever should want to do an article on this again should bring it to an admin before creating it, as the logs show apparent issues with abiding by many of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - Just wanted to slow things down initially to make sure there weren't sources out there. Didn't work out that way, though, unfortunately. Speedy would have been fine, in retrospect. MrZaius  talk  08:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:02, 21 September 2008 (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.