Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InspIRCd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. After weighing all the arguments against each other, I come to the conclusion that the keep arguments largely seem based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one has heard of something does not make it notable. Ultimately the notability of the subject is weak and cannot be adequately established. Riana (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InspIRCd

[edit]
InspIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Actually, in the enwiki-archive, this page was not created by the development team. Instead it was restored and enhanced by the development team after being deleted for non-notability. Would it make any difference if it were deleted and then restored by someone outside the project? The argument is weak. --nenolod (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~Update~ I have rewritten the article with the initial guidance and help from User:USER-cacophony both from his contributions to the article itself, and his excellent comments on this Afd. Thank you heaps! Being new to wikipedia it's always nice to receive guidance from more experienced editors. I think I've included every worthwhile reference I could find, and look forward to seeing how other editors judge the notability of this article. If it does not cut it, too bad, if it does, fine. Either way it goes, thank you again for all the time you have spent on this Afd, the article itself and research of the article's references. -- 83.88.224.53 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • extremely large discussion boldly moved to the talk page, continue it there please.
Reply - ee other products written by the same developer: WinBot, IRC Defender etc etc. All of these are notable (one of these projects is over eight years old).

Braindigitalis 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You say it is a very well known piece of software with many references, yet you have yet to prove that it meets notability requirements. Regarding searchirc, your argument against it is positively absurd. It's a verifiable source of notability, and to say that it needs to be notable to be verifiable is like saying every single news reporter has to be notable to be verifiable. Regarding your last point, the software is not among the core products of a notable software developer. Contrary to what you may believe, you are not notable. That clause is reserved for such developers as Microsoft or Symantec. Therefore, InspIRCd does not meet that notability guideline.
  • Reply - Searchirc is not a written publication, it is a forum, and until a few weeks ago its ircd statistics were broken. What exactly makes searchirc notable, please point out how this is notable within wikipedia's rules. If only large developers such as symantec and microsoft are notable, then most of wikipedias software articles must be removed, and if this removal goes ahead, i will be nominating most of them for RfD to prove a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Considering that all such articles i will submit for RfD will be non-notable and matching the criteria for deletion, and that i will do each one at a time by hand, i do not see how this is disruption, only tidying of non-notable irrelevent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Pardon? Please keep the emotive words and name calling out of this. Calling people 'vain' without knowing them, 'terrorists' without seeming to have any comprehension of what a terrorist is..? Keep the debate to the merits. Unless you have more in this than enhancing wikipedia. 83.100.194.63 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where as, of course, your motives and interactions are perfectly clean. None the less, don't rise to the bait yourself. Also: In addition, vanity, as article was created by W00teh, seems to refute that. 83.100.194.63 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Trying to defend actions with policy doesn't quite cut it. That was a personal attack. If you'd left names out of it and said 'the development team', I think it would have sufficed. That having been said, who knows an IRCd better than IRCd authors? 83.100.194.63 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then claim I will. Because I don't call policy grounds for public attack on an individual. Nor would I call 'intimidation' reason to start calling someone a terrorist. That word should stay reserved for the scum that kill people. Not someone who disagrees with you. 83.100.194.63 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of it, I've not heard of a lot of other IRCDs, and I'm not someone who runs one or who knows a huge amount about them. I've also never heard of the searchirc site cacophony keeps referring to to demonstrate non-notability, and I can't see how a non-notable site can demonstrate notability or a lack of it. J-Deeks 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - CLARIFICATION IS OBVIOUSLY NEEDED HERE - I am not using SearchIRC to demonstrate non-notability. Non-notability is assumed. It is the burden of those wishing to keep this article to demonstrate notability. I am merely using SearchIRC as a statistic to show usage. cacophony ◄► 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project is very notable for an IRC Server ohloh report. Also bearing the discussion, cacophony refrains from taking any notice to hard facts presented to him other than then coming up with new reasons to delete. I do not understand that behaviour. I conclude his motives are not in the interest of wikipedia and attribute it to some unknown personal agenda since the educational hard fact comments would make a neutral person go, "Oh I did not know, my bad, sorry". And not try to dig up 5 other reasons to delete a page. Wikipedia is not a pissing contest, I move cacophony finds other places to fulfill this obvious need for competition. 83.88.224.53 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — 83.88.224.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. yes I forgot the tildes, but added them as soon as I realised. Also, I see no comments here not making a real argument. I also did not follow a link from any source, was not asked to participate on this discussion, and I do not have an account on here, but I did want to give my observations as I perceive them. 83.88.224.53 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been proven notable as per requirements on linked page, and relevant to the IRC community as it has initiated a number of changed that are now being taken up by other development teams. non notable site with inaccurate statistics is irrelevant 220.233.225.111 — 220.233.225.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - SearchIRC currently indexes 7,538 servers on 4,242 networks, well in excess of the standard survey sample size is 1,000 units. It is an accurate statistic, whether you like it or not. cacophony ◄► 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - SearchIRC's ircd statistics do not properly represent number of installed IRC servers of each particular version. Lets look into for example the fact that other ircd software releases maybe once or twice a year. This means that in a five year period they may have released 10 different versions. InspIRCd subscribes to the 'release early, release often' principal (see 'cathederal and the bazaar') which means that in a year we may put out fifty releases. With many irc networks running InspIRCd versions spread across 50 releases, these are unlikely to show on stats, which seperate by version number. Therefore the data you are using for your idea of notability is flawed and not fit for this use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindigitalis (talk • contribs)
Reply - Users may be using a release from over a year ago on their network to date. the number of releases in the last 2 months (probably 4 or more for reference) is irrelevant Users may be using 1.0.7, 1.1.1, 1.1.2 through 1.1.9 all released in the last 2 years vrs software being released once a year. Just because it released doesnt mean people upgrade to it. 220.233.225.111
  • Comment You still aren't reading this. There are people running servers that haven't been rebooted for nearly -a year-. That is, 1.0.6 or whatever. I'd estimate the total usage to be around 100-120 servers, based on 2-3 per network. There are currently 75-85 people in the development channel. Come and visit sometime. 83.100.194.63 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Fair enough, regardless of our differing opinions on that. FreeBSD and Gentoo ports have still not been addressed. These are sources for determining notability according to the policy. 220.233.225.111
Comment - They have been addressed previously and the discussion was moved to the talk page, but I will summarize it here: The policy states that is a possibility that the software is notable if it is included in a major software distribution. To be included in the distribution means to be on the disk, to be in the default install, etc. Examples of this are GCC or Glibc. To be in an external package management system, simply available for download and install, does not count as being in the distribution, because anybody can simply add any software to the package management system. Indeed, InspIRCd was added to the FreeBSD ports system by none other than the InspIRCd project's lead developer, Braindigitalis, which counts as self-promotion and thus discounts it from notability anyways. cacophony ◄► 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect. He submitted a port to the freebsd team, and they included it. Furthermore, the Gentoo port wasn't even created by someone on the team - it's created and maintained by nenolod. BuildSmart is working on getting a package included with OS X server. 83.100.194.63 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That he submitted the port himself is also self promotion. Regardless, you failed to read the other part of my post - that is, just because a package is in a package management system does not mean it is in the software distribution. For a package to be in the software distribution it has to be on the normal install disk, and installed by default. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see any possible reason for installing an IRCd by default at all. No IRCd is installed by default anywhere. And in case of gentoo, yes, it does mean it is included in software distribution, because the ebuild is included in a portage snapshot on CD, same as kernel or any system tool. 195.131.148.102 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well then perhaps you should consider the possibility that InspIRCd does not meet that notability requirement, as you previously believed. By the way, an ebuild, in case anybody is wondering, is simply a file that lists such things as where to download the software, and how to install it. When one wishes to install a package on Gentoo, it reads the ebuild, downloads the actual program, and installs it. You wanted to get into semantics, so here it is - that doesn't count. cacophony ◄► 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But it does indeed count per notability guidelines. You cannot treat the ebuild differently than an RPM. They are both package metadata. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, sorry, but you are wrong. As per precedent, inclusion in the Gentoo metadata does count the package as being part of a distribution. Where and when the package gets compiled is not important - whats interesting is that the metadata for the package is managed by the distribution package manager and made available to you. I'm afraid this particular thread of the argument is moot. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about [1], and [2], and [3], and [4]. These are all keep or no consensus, and all reference Gentoo as a legitimate distribution. You'll note that I commented on several of these. I do generally agree with you about the relatively notability of any given Gentoo package, but what I think doesn't matter. Its very clear that the community has spoken. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are confusing correlation with causation. In none of those AfDs did a decision of notability depend on the fact that the software in question was available for download in a package management system. cacophony ◄► 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have little need to edit articles, my main use of wikipedia is for finding information for myself, so yes I rarely edit articles, I spend my time elsewhere. I have however made a number of points that I feel valid, and my vote, above, is a very brief summary. I did not follow a link from a forum, was not asked to come here etc. so I do not know why you think it is a SPA. but oh well. 220.233.225.111
  • Weak Delete - it has a few sources, but don't think it quite meets the notability guidelines because they're fairly trivial. If some more reliable sources can be found I'll change my vote. --Darksun 19:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see a reasoning behind your conclusions. Simply stating WP:JNN or WP:APATHY as a reason is not a helpful argument. Please expand on your views as to clarify your position. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - InspIRCd is notable for having an entirely modularized approach (even SSL support is modular). Every config of InspIRCd can be entirely unique from every other. There is an entirely new level of choice in configurability available to the administrators running InspIRCd. That in itself makes it notable. --nenolod File:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been following InspIRCd in it's development, while it may not be notable right now, it is one of the most interesting (and successful) recodes and re-thinking of IRCd, with fresh ideas. If we were to delete this due to non-notability we ought to delete, definately, the UltimateIRCd article, and if we were to be nitpicky, remove all IRCds based on the argument "Reserved for Microsoft and Symantec and such". I agree there has been some degree of self-promotion that has a tendancy to be biased, but I honestly think this article should be kept, researched by independent people and documented - as this is an interesting project (even though it's a direct "competitor" of my project, UnrealIRCd). InspIRCd also discusses with other development teams and has a proper impact in the IRC community. For the sake of Notability, UnrealIRCd is also on speed-track to deletion - and if anything, UnrealIRCd sure as hell has some degree of Notability in the IRC world (prove me wrong?), for better or worse, and the discussion should take place on the other "IRCd" articles as well if so. --Stskeeps 84.238.9.161 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree it does seem a little biased in writing and agree with the earlier suggestion by nenolod that it be cleaned up and sourced correctly rather than deleted 220.233.225.111
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles can't be kept on the grounds that they may be notable in the future. Wikipedia is not the place for independant original research either. The research and documentation must take place away from Wikipedia, in reliable sources. If this is the case, then those sources can be cited to assert notability. --Darksun 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is already on watch, by nenolod. If it isn't cleaned up properly and cited, then remove it in, say a week or two's time, or nominate it for AfD then. Nominating for AfD without doing this seems rather destructive. 83.100.194.63 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have any additional sources, I suggest you cite them here and now, rather than waiting a week or two. cacophony ◄► 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a job, and a life. I'm already having to take time out of my schedule to participate in this stupid debate. That in addition to my interests would not make it a good idea for me to do anything on this article. 83.100.194.63 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well then, if you can't find any additional sources, which I couldn't, then I don't see any reason to keep this article, as it is non-notable. cacophony ◄► 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point was that it should be put on notice for myself or others to try and find time to actually work on the article, rather than emulating the bull in the china shop and deleting an article, removing something which has made modest contributions to the IRC landscape. But, whatever. I think Carlo Wood had a point on IRCd:Talk. I'm done with Wikipedia also. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD lasts five days, from the beginning to the end. That even extends into the weekend, giving everybody ample time to find reliable sources. If none can be found in five days, then chances are they don't exist. cacophony ◄► 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's in hot water already as far as WP:NOT, and for me the WP:VAIN-esque nature of the article clinches it. It reads like a feature list. I'd also like to point out that 67k Google hits is quite poor for something that is available on SourceForge... you're going to get thousands of hits just by being on SourceForge, heh... --Jaysweet 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My guess is you've never worked with IRC related software. Take a look at google hits for UltimateIRCd, which has existed for a lot longer than InspIRCd. 83.100.194.63 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please explain why you feel this article is WP:NOT, I'm trying to guess your argument, but I would rather you explained it. Just quoting policy WP:JUSTAPOLICY with no explanation does not really help further the resolution of this hearing. Same goes for the search engine. How do you conclude notability or lack of same from that number? 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though, 67k Google hits does mean more than just that it's on sourceforge. Looking at the first few pages of Google results for inspircd, though, I see inspircd's websites, its svn, lots of download pages, freshmeat-like sites, and advertisements in various wikis. I think those 67k Google hits don't show that inspircd is used very much, but rather that the inspircd community is very good at advertising.eigenlambda 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply To be fair take a look at the most used IRCD at the moment, according to searchirc, and its google results, Exactly the same, UnrealIRCD site, Forums, Download Mirrors, and Wiki entries. The community tends to exist within itself, offering support through its self maintained forums (listed in results) and its own IRC channels. Currently there are 350+ registered members, the only reason for someone to register is due to their own usage of such an application. 220.233.225.111
reply A search engine's results WP:GHITS says only little about notability under which this article is marked for deletion. I do not think this can be used as a criteria either way for this particular review. But please give more argumentation. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there is references in the article to sources can you please extend on your argumentation. See WP:JNN for more information. 83.88.224.53 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I can indeed - there is only one reference in the article, for a start (there are a few external links - if these are to be taken as references they need to be included with the text of the article and be "referenced" more precisely). Secondly, the references alone, do not necessarily confer notability - in today's world a link on an internet page does not make something notable. If you can show that it is with some more references (which don't just "mention" the software in question) and which, in themselves, are of sufficiant notability then the article might be worth keeping. At the moment I cannot see it, as such I felt that the article should be deleted as it has had sufficient time to find these. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wholly agree to your observations of the references, and have utilised my sparse editorial skills to try and rectify the situation. I am not claiming the article is still not non noteable but now it reads more like a proper wikipedia article according to article guidelines. 83.88.224.53 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue isn't how it "reads", the issue is, among other things, a lack of sources. In attempting to address Michael's reservations about the article, you have wholly ignored his main complaint - a lack of sources, and thus have not added a single one. cacophony ◄► 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I agree on that, I did add another source I found by using google book finder. I apologise for my previous comment about your motives, I made those faulty conclusions before having read any official wikipedia policies and was going by my own convictions. Again, I am truly sorry for that. Based on my experience with IRC and IRC servers, it's a very small community, bringing alot of value to a big community (the ppl that chat on the servers). I find it remarkable that this IRC Server is mentioned in 2 paper books, and is defended by the lead of what seems to be the most popular IRCD right now, namely Stskeeps of UnrealIRCd. In the narrow context of IRC Server Software, I think InspIRCd cuts the mustard for notability and I believe the notability rules should consider the scope too. For IRC Servers you will have to in my opinion. 83.88.224.53 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please keep in mind two things - first of all, that all users on Wikipedia are equal. That "stskeeps" contributes to UnrealIRCd has no bearing on the value of his opinion - that is, it is as valuable as everybody else's, and no more. Second of all, we are judging the notability of this article among all other Wikipedia articles, which is to say, it's notability is to be judged not among IRCds, but among every article in Wikipedia. If we simply allowed every article that was notable in it's own context, then anything could get it's own Wikipedia article, regardless of it's actual, individual notability. cacophony ◄► 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article in some ways may read like an advertisement, it is a well thought out article, and judging from the sources, and my experiences of ircds, this article has more then enough sources. Mentions in two book publications is way more then enough to make an article on a particular ircd noteable(as well as a bunch of internet sources). The irc community is quite small, not as large as it used to be, and inspircd is truly innovative, and deserves place in the wikipedia. I would also like to note that I participate in QA team, and help with some tech support in the channel, but I do that with other projects and ircds as well, and does not directly mean I am biased as to what I say. Dmbtech 16:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverse my last comment, as the article has been changed, and believe it fully goes along with wikipedia policy now. Dmbtech 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in "Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise", by Syngress;
  • "The most efficient way to deal with these bots is via server-side filtering, for example the filtering systems of IRC server software such as UnrealIRCd and InspIRCd."
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in '"Emerging Threat Analysis : From Mischief to Malicious", by Syngress;
  • "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."
Sorry, but just having your name dropped as a passing reference in a couple books does not make something notable. Also please note that we are to judge InspIRCd's notability in general, among everything, rather than simply among IRCds. cacophony ◄► 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if thats the case, I suppose any article relating to irc should be deleted from the wikipedia and considered not notable. Dmbtech 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I have already addressed this, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. cacophony ◄► 02:02, 24 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/InspIRCd&oldid=1069023036"