Content deleted Content added
Miami33139 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''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. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:44, 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. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:44, 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. [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk:Miami33139|talk]]) 04:53, 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. [[User:Miami33139|Miami33139]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 06:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:42, 1 October 2009
Z-Net
- Z-Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)