Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Net


 * 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. Article will be userfied to WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net upon Tothwolf's request. MuZemike 01:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Z-Net

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This contested PROD is not notable software. It isn't even stand-alone software, it's a script for mIRC.... Unreferenced, notability not claimed. Wikipedia is not a software directory of things helpful for mIRC. Miami33139 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a nice, big article, but it's entirely unsourced, which means it fails WP:N: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the article doesn't have sources cited doesn't mean sources don't exist and that notability doesn't exist. For all i know this Mass AfD of IRC client-related articles going on right now is perfectly reasonable, or perfectly unreasonable.  Unless WP:BEFORE is followed at least to some extent, how can one opine intelligently on whether an article should be removed? --Milowent (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BEFORE is one essay, BURDEN is another. Clearing BURDEN should be step one in writing an article. A number of editors seem interested in adding trivia to these articles, but not take on the effort of showing notability? When contested, it seems most of this software (IRC is just a recent focus area, I previously went through a lot of software MP3 players) doesn't get sourced, even at AfD. But get realistic and look at this article. It's not even a client, it is a script plugin for a client. This software category and sub-categories has gone on way too long without anybody scrubbing it of cruft, trivia, and vanity. Being on Wikipedia drives web traffic and we should absolutely not be the primary source for products that don't get attention elsewhere. Miami33139 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and look for sources,and then come back here if you don;'t find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others.  It is an abuse of process to use AfD  to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly   to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking.    DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC) modified--see below    DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look for sources, in fact, I looked under multiple search terms. Read this article. It's a script plugin for mIRC (which I have open right now, because I don't know enough about ircII doesn't mean I don't know anything about IRC). On the basic google searches (books, scholar, news) there are zero sources about this looking for 'znet' or 'znet irc' or 'znet mirc' not even trivial mentions, which make this the most obviously non-notable thing I've seen today. These things are coming to AfD because there is an IP removing all PRODs from software articles. Sorry to mess up your workload, but that is the process. Miami33139 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly non-notable and I must admit I am a bit dismayed by DGG's opinion on this one.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's well reasoned argument. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep high number of sources in online search, e.g. solid DMOZ reference. Recently, the nominator who describes himself as inclusionist mass-suggests IRC/chat related articles while not showing familiarity with the subject. I second DGG, however the urgent problem I see is the repeated pattern in which the AfD-process is used from the nominator, perhaps this isn't what AfD was created for. The pattern looks like this: The nominator suggests article without making any improvements or showing evidence of a research, he then dismisses any work as "not good enough" to a point where it is useless to show a 3rd party refernce to him, typically followed by JoeChill and JBsupreme (who now followed my edit history and nominated Notepad++). I am concerned about the activities of the nominator. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DMOZ is a user-contributed directory. It is not considered a reliable source as it is user-generated content. It does not show notability anymore than a listing in the phone book does. Miami33139 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG, see also Articles_for_deletion/Kopete related AfD (among many IRC related noms) from same nominator, where a little searching found a slew of sources for consideration. --Milowent (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete why is a mIRC mod without news coverage being kept here? I mean really., Clearly not WP:N here, so get rid of it!--WngLdr34 (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Speaking in general, you did not assert that you had looked for sources, and of course it is necessary to  look for sources,and   come   here if you don't find any after a proper search, including likely printed manuals. You say that you are going through subject areas you recognize that are not an expert in (see your comment at the List of ircII scripts AfD a little above) looking for articles that happen not to have sources. Butthe criterion for deletion here is not "unsourced" but unsourceable". Attempts to use "unsourced" as the criterion have been thoroughly rejected buy the community. Our job is to construct sourced articles. This is attained by sourcing the ones that can be, and deleting the others.  It is an abuse of process to use AfD  to force sourcing--it should be used to delete the articles you tried properly   to source with an appropriate search for sources, and failed to do so. There are certainly enough of them! -- I would never say otherwise. It is wrong to enter an article without looking for sources, and just as wrong to delete one without looking.
 * With respect to this particular article it is very difficult to search, since "z net" occurs in the names for quite a number of things (see the G search at the top--i find prominently  a blog associated with Z Communications and  an internet service .  . Checking in Gbooks, it appears in particular that there are many hits, but they are for "Z-NET" -- an early protocol for networking that does not appear to have a WP article,. but probably should. I am therefore uncertain whether there is anything good among the hits, but there may not be. A tentative weak delete until someone finds something.    DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having done some checking now myself, I have to agree. I think we can find enough in the way of primary sources to make it verifiable but I'm not finding enough in the way of 3rd party sources (although there may be something in archive.org) at present to establish enough notability for this to be a standalone article. I think some of this material may fit in well with a larger more comprehensive article that covers IRC scripts though. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG, don't put words in my mouth that I know nothing on the subject. I do not know the subject of ircII or the article history of ircII, so did not feel comfortable with that merge. I do know something about IRC and mIRC in general. I open mIRC on a daily basis. I've been using IRC since the late 80s, when it was just 'chat' on a shell account and before that there were in-numerable multi-user chats on BBSs and timeshared accounts on services like Tymnet (often hacked) that pre-date the big I Internet. I am old. I've been using this stuff a long time, and I can recognize that most of this chat stuff on Wikipedia is crap. IRC is notable. Articles on hundreds of clients and sub-categories of scripts, bots, and client specific proxies is not.
 * As respects to searching for sources for this article, since it is a script dependent on mirc, add mirc to your searches to remove chaff. There is nothing, not even the trivial mentions most of these judgment call nominations are hanging on. Don't jump down my throat because my judgment on what is a trivial mentions is different, that's the purpose of the discussion. When milder proposals like PROD get mass-removed, with no work done to address the issue, you end up with mass nominations. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy to the IRC WikiProject's sandbox as WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net as per my !vote for List of ircII scripts until we can decide how to expand or merge this material. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a comment, mass movement of material to user/wikispace amounts to content forking. I don't oppose some "work needed" moves, but creation of IRCopedia in the Wikiproject sandbox is to be avoided. Miami33139 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * no it does not represent forking. Article space and user space are distinct, and we have always permitted improvable articles there. This is just one type of topics among the thousands that are being worked on is userspace. Trying to prevent that implies to me a preconception about what type of topics might be shown to be notable.   DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 5 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.