Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DALnet

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 keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DALnet and other IRC network articles

I am nominating all IRC network articles for deletion, except for freenode and OFTC which have non-trivial sources. I do not dispute that the largest IRC networks are more notable than the smaller ones, nor do I dispute that some of them have long and interesting histories for IRC users, and I am a big fan of IRC myself (I use many of these nets). However, all of these articles lack the reliable secondary sources necessary to put together a encyclopedia-quality article. At best someone might find some uninformed article in a newspaper, or a "...for Dummies" book that provides a stub-style description; such a description would likely belong on the main IRC article. Out of my concern for the quality of an article produced entirely by non-reliable Internet sources I ask for these deletions. Shii (tock) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I don't see how any of these are non-notable. A cursory google news search shows quite a few articles on at least some of these. You might want to withdraw and re-nominate separately. Additionally, WP:NOTCLEANUP quite relevant to this nomination. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all EFnet and IRCnet specifically are remnants of the Original IRC Network, you can't possibly be serious? Frogfork (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. While there are a few networks of questionable notability included in this nomination (RusNet and SlashNET come to mind), the notability of most of these networks is pretty clear from either their lineage (EFnet and IRCnet as the direct descendants of the original IRC network) or their history (DALnet was hit by a series of high-profile DoS attacks in 2002). Bundling them all in a single nomination is ridiculous. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep all~~ I agree with Zetawoof, some of the IRC networks out there which have wikipedia entries probably shouldn't, but EFnet and IRCnet should absolutely be preserved. They are indeed the remains of the original IRC network which served tens of millions of users. Frogfork (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this is the user's second !vote to keep all. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment !vote thus stricken. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are all pretty well established networks, many appearing in the top 10 of the top 100 irc networks, although the articles do lack WP:RS deletion is just not justified. I can help improve the EFnet article. --Hm2k (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I think if any of these are going to be deleted it really should be a one by one sort of thing. This just seems like trying to ram the whole thing through at once. Androsyn (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with all of the above. Most of the networks have tens of thousands of concurrent users online. Anything used by that many people deserves an article on Wikipedia. It seems like these articles were mislabelled and should have a cleanup template on the top of them, instead. -BarkerJr (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the clear consensus I withdraw this nomination. Unfortunately I don't have the time to close right now-- I am about to hop on a plane. I humbly ask some admin to clean this up. Shii (tock) 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that nearly all still-extant IRC network articles have credible RS available. I've previously linked to several in EL sections and Talk pages pending expansion. The vast majority of the truly non-notable articles have already been purged. MrZaius^talk 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per agruments already stated. Anybody prepared to call snowball? McWomble (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll call it. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.