Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer)

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. The "keep" opinions do not cite the reliable independent sources that they claim exist, and the article as is is indeed sourced only to "wikis, blogs, and documentation". Ad hominems don't help, either. This means that I have to give the "keep" opinions less weight than the "delete" opinions, which make reference to the well-established sourcing requirements of WP:N.  Sandstein  17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ZNC (IRC bouncer)

ZNC (IRC bouncer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Sourced to wikis, blogs, and documentation. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, dont delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iocc (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• That's ridiculous, ZNC has a large community and is easily the second most popular bouncer behind psyBNC. If you want to go down this road, you will have to delete psyced, InspIRCd, Gozerbot, PBot, Psotnic, Mozbot, EnergyMech and Darkbot, and a lot of other articles as well. Also, if you wanted to follow through with Wikipedia is not a software directory, please go ahead and delete: Comparison of IRC clients, Comparison of mobile IRC clients, Comparison of IRC daemons, Comparison of IRC services and 99% of the entries in Category:Internet_Relay_Chat_clients. Thanks for listening and please re-consider your deletion request. Fl4kes (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply "99% of the entries in Category:Internet_Relay_Chat_clients" might be a good idea. I image a dozen or so have good references and the rest don't. Miami33139 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• If someone wants to compare the recent download statistics of ZNC and psyBNC, 2447 downloads of ZNC-0.074 in 2 months, and 13386 downloads of psyBNC 2.3.2.7 in over four years. That makes about 40 ZNC downloads per day, and only around 7 for psyBNC. Fl4kes (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fl4kes, Please don't feed the troll, Miami33139 is currently on a crusade to delete all articles I've worked on since they finally managed to run off User:Ed Fitzgerald and are now bored. They just mass-AfD'd a bunch of IRC-related articles to get revenge on me for calling them out on their behaviour elsewhere. The majority of these articles can be improved and sourced, but Miami33139 has a vested interest in not doing so as this is a game to them to see just how many they can get deleted. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Grow up and stop stooping to personal attacks. If you can show notability for this subject, then do so. Your handwaving has become tiresome. JBsupreme (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, it is clearly notable, Wikipedia does have articles on notable software, without being a software directory. Non-notable would be something for which no sources exist, or where all sources are primary sources. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You said that a non-notable piece of software would be one where all sources are primary sources. That is true for this article! Miami33139 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • How do you know? Please describe what steps you took to look for sources. Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Uncle G, that was a specific reply to the comment from Oldlaptop321. I looked at the sources provided for this article that are currently in it. However, before I nominated this article, I looked at the first 50 hits on books.google.com, scholar.google.com, and news.google.com, for 'znc irc' (not quoted as a search term) and found nothing of interest. Miami33139 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand, solid references and software still in use. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are solid references, please add them to the article. They are not there now. Miami33139 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with. No compelling reasons for deletion given by nom. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Please log in with your regular account so that we may validate you are not vote stacking. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Extra strong delete. This is not a vote kids. Remember that the closing administrator has full discretion to close this as a delete if no one can produce a solid argument for notability of this product, backed by non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Quantpole (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unable to find RS or any other evidence this pass GNG. Existing refs fail RS or are self pub Triplestop x3 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • still, it is used by many people, which e.g. [1] shows. Sadly, many IRC things don't have good written references as many trends and discussions take place in the temporary IRC itself. Yarcanox (talk) 09:47, 2 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.