529:
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.
281:
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.
315:(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.
544:. . 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.
280:
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
597:
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
252:
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,
528:
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
421:
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
589:
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
665:
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
594:(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 Knowledge is crap. IRC is notable. Articles on hundreds of clients and sub-categories of scripts, bots, and client specific proxies is not.
257:
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
Knowledge drives web traffic and we should absolutely not be the primary source for products that don't get attention elsewhere.
225:
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
560:
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
184:
This contested PROD is not notable software. It isn't even stand-alone software, it's a script for mIRC.... Unreferenced, notability not claimed. Knowledge is not a software directory of things helpful for mIRC.
418:
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
153:
641:
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.
598:
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.
534:
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
461:
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.
565:) 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
114:
253:
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
376:
353:
147:
590:
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
422:
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 (
487:
444:
490:
related AfD (among many IRC related noms) from same nominator, where a little searching found a slew of sources for consideration. --
17:
620:
49:
168:
135:
696:
87:
82:
36:
230:
is followed at least to some extent, how can one opine intelligently on whether an article should be removed? --
695:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
212:
91:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
448:
74:
624:
207:: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -
129:
646:
603:
466:
320:
263:
190:
384:
361:
339:
334:. This is clearly non-notable and I must admit I am a bit dismayed by DGG's opinion on this one.
208:
161:
125:
632:
574:
516:
495:
405:
235:
53:
78:
677:
650:
636:
607:
578:
555:
520:
499:
470:
452:
409:
388:
365:
343:
324:
311:
I did look for sources, in fact, I looked under multiple search terms. Read this article. It's
306:
267:
239:
216:
194:
56:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
175:
538:
227:
70:
62:
642:
599:
462:
316:
259:
186:
380:
357:
335:
673:
628:
570:
551:
512:
507:
why is a mIRC mod without news coverage being kept here? I mean really., Clearly not
491:
401:
302:
288:
231:
141:
108:
440:
562:
508:
204:
203:- It's a nice, big article, but it's entirely unsourced, which means it fails
668:
546:
483:
297:
283:
591:
689:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
439:) and JBsupreme (who now followed my edit history and nominated
627:
until we can decide how to expand or merge this material. --
535:
443:). I am concerned about the activities of the nominator.
437:
435:
433:
431:
429:
427:
425:
423:
104:
100:
96:
160:
542:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
699:). No further edits should be made to this page.
377:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
354:list of Software-related deletion discussions
174:
8:
371:
348:
375:: This debate has been included in the
352:: This debate has been included in the
666:topics might be shown to be notable.
621:Knowledge:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net
50:Knowledge:WikiProject IRC/Sandbox/Z-Net
488:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Kopete
7:
619:to the IRC WikiProject's sandbox as
24:
398:per DGG's well reasoned argument.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
48:. Article will be userfied to
1:
291:) 04:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
678:03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
651:19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
637:18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
608:19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
579:18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
556:18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
521:16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
500:14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
471:15:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
453:14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
410:13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
389:09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
366:09:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
344:06:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
325:04:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
307:18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
268:01:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
240:01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
217:00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
195:00:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
57:01:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
716:
541:and an internet service
511:here, so get rid of it!--
52:upon Tothwolf's request.
692:Please do not modify it.
313:a script plugin for mIRC
32:Please do not modify it.
537:a blog associated with
625:List of ircII scripts
623:as per my !vote for
294:modified--see below
44:The result was
391:
368:
707:
694:
539:Z Communications
179:
178:
164:
112:
94:
34:
715:
714:
710:
709:
708:
706:
705:
704:
703:
697:deletion review
690:
121:
85:
69:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
713:
711:
702:
701:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
656:
655:
654:
653:
613:
612:
611:
610:
595:
584:
583:
582:
581:
531:
530:
523:
502:
476:
475:
474:
473:
456:
455:
412:
392:
369:
346:
329:
328:
327:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
245:
244:
243:
242:
220:
219:
209:DustFormsWords
182:
181:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
712:
700:
698:
693:
687:
679:
675:
671:
670:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
614:
609:
605:
601:
596:
593:
588:
587:
586:
585:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
548:
543:
540:
536:
533:
532:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
477:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
450:
446:
445:83.254.210.47
442:
438:
436:
434:
432:
430:
428:
426:
424:
420:
417:
413:
411:
407:
403:
399:
397:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
299:
295:
292:
290:
286:
285:
279:
275:
269:
265:
261:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
241:
237:
233:
229:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
691:
688:
667:
616:
566:
545:
525:
504:
479:
415:
414:
395:
394:
372:
349:
331:
312:
296:
293:
282:
277:
276:
254:
200:
183:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
567:IRC scripts
563:archive.org
526:Weak delete
486:, see also
148:free images
643:Miami33139
600:Miami33139
569:though. --
463:Miami33139
317:Miami33139
260:Miami33139
187:Miami33139
441:Notepad++
381:Thryduulf
358:Thryduulf
336:JBsupreme
228:WP:BEFORE
629:Tothwolf
571:Tothwolf
513:WngLdr34
492:Milowent
419:subject.
402:Tothwolf
232:Milowent
115:View log
54:MuZemike
154:WP refs
142:scholar
88:protect
83:history
617:Userfy
592:Tymnet
505:Delete
332:Delete
255:script
201:Delete
126:Google
92:delete
46:delete
674:talk
552:talk
303:talk
289:talk
169:JSTOR
130:books
109:views
101:watch
97:links
71:Z-Net
63:Z-Net
16:<
647:talk
633:talk
604:talk
575:talk
517:talk
509:WP:N
496:talk
482:per
480:Keep
467:talk
449:talk
416:Keep
406:talk
396:Keep
385:talk
373:Note
362:talk
350:Note
340:talk
321:talk
278:Keep
264:talk
236:talk
213:talk
205:WP:N
191:talk
162:FENS
136:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
669:DGG
547:DGG
484:DGG
298:DGG
284:DGG
176:TWL
113:– (
676:)
649:)
635:)
606:)
577:)
554:)
519:)
498:)
469:)
451:)
408:)
400:--
387:)
379:.
364:)
356:.
342:)
323:)
305:)
266:)
238:)
215:)
193:)
156:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
672:(
645:(
631:(
602:(
573:(
550:(
515:(
494:(
465:(
447:(
404:(
383:(
360:(
338:(
319:(
301:(
287:(
262:(
234:(
211:(
189:(
180:)
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
120:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.