Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnrealIRCd (3rd 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. Most of the arguments to keep are invalid as they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Lack of sources which establish notability is the reason for the vast majority of deletions through this process and is therefore a perfectly valid argument to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

UnrealIRCd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software. No actual notability demonstrated in previous AfDs. Joe Chill (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnotable piece of software, fails WP:NSOFT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion opposed
I refer you to the Wikipedia Chairman's call for clemency and editor encouragement of May 2011.
 * Keep Reason #1: you are never going to get notable sources for daemons. Yet the entire internet runs on countless daemons.
 * Keep Reason #2: it's not a bad article. There was a substantial new release of it last month - July 2011.
 * Keep Reason #3: last but not least, this is Cobi's article. If Cobi, with literally millions of anti-vandalism edits can't have an article on a topic in which he has expert opinion, then what hope is there for any of us?

Go on, "Be Nice" - please lend a hand. Wikipedia Chairman appeals for kindness,here, discussed here. Are you in? Geoffjw1978 TL C 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason #3 is terrible and not worthy of consideration whatsoever. Just because I have expert knowledge on Charybdis does not make it worthy to be kept. —  Waterfox ~talk~ 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "you are never going to get notable sources for daemons." My point exactly. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So how are you going to list daemon's in the encyclopedia? Just because no-one wants to write an article on sendmail in The New Yorker, does that mean the transmission method of 90% of the world's email is not part of the "sum of human knowledge"?
 * I think any deletion of the article should only be allowed to go ahead with a valid proposal, and work done, to fix all the redlinks that would be created, and that work done prior to deletion. Over 250 redlinks >> Special:WhatLinksHere/UnrealIRCd<<  Just my 2cents worth. I don't have any vested interest in the article or conflict of interest.  Geoffjw1978 TL C 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NSOFT The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. and reference #2 One of the most popular and full-featured ircds is Unreal. -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 11:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If this software doesn't meet the criteria for notability then I think alot of the pages for FOSS would not either. I strongly oppose notability as sufficient reason to delete this page. It is established and notable in its type. MadCow257 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NSOFT is not an actual guideline. Being established and notable in its type does not equal Wikipedia notability. Joe Chill (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, as multiple sources of high quality, such as " IRC Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools" (an O'Reilly book, can't get more RS than that), say it is a leader in its sector. Have the "delete" even bothered to read the sources?.--Cerejota (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What are these multiple sources? Your keep is based on one source. Joe Chill (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2011 (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.