Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbleNET

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Koavf (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 2 September 2012 (→[[AbleNET]]: Substituting template per documentation, replaced: {{unsigned → {{subst:unsigned (11) using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 of the debate was despite the sockfest, there was no consensus between established Wikipedias to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbleNET

  • Delete, very small user base, which may be made up of clones/bots. Not notable for listing on Wikipedia. Every IRC network that comes along does not need a Wikipedia entry, only those that are notable. (IE: efnet, undernet, dalnet, ect) 3H 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article is a disappointment. The size of the userbase is not the issue, the issue regarding this article is the lack of importance in the history of IRC. If there is history, this information should be published and cited from credible sources. This article is also very short. It lacks content and only contains a brief discription of the network. Any established IRC network would have description, history, userbase, sample of popular channels, importance on the history of IRC, and how it impacted the IRC community. It could even include a map of the servers linked to the IRC network. One should also include details regarding the founder(s) and prominent IRCops. For example, DALnet and EFnet have both impacted and even excelled in spreading popularity of IRC to both experienced and novice Internet users. This article would be worth of keeping if it were expanded with more credible information. RB 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I logged on to this network and it only had under 70 users. I think this network is too obscure to be worthy of a wikipedia listing as there are hundreds of minor IRC networks about the same size. At the least, it ought to be removed from the block of IRC networks since it doesn't belong alongside Dalnet and the like. 206.106.75.41 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The userbase are legitimate users, but it is a small network. Perhaps removal from the sidebar is justified, but I think total deletion of the article isn't necessary. Perrinw0lf 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Logged onto network and it has nearly 200 users. Know most of them and very few are bots, rest are actual users. No harm being done at all. Would recommend to keep it same as every one elses as effort has been made to do this. More credible information can very well be added if we were giving the chance to stay. Until very recently, a lot of people from this site didn't know to some full extent how wikipedia worked. Now we do. --81.100.49.60 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I say keep it. A lot of good people on the server, and the owner is very friendly even though he loves pointing on spelling flaws. Is it really hurting anything to keep it listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.236.84 (talk • contribs)

(I edited the beginnings of the entries to reflect the votes thus far) 3H 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Size is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, the goal of which is to collect a through reference of information. Were any reference to exlude a subject simply because it was obscure, it would have defeated its own purpose, which is to provide factual information on things we don't know already. It is "unencyclopaedic" to exclude information, not to retain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.156.251 (talk • contribs) on 01:18, 13 February 2006
  • Delete, not notable. no importance or information worthy of a Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.250.194 (talk • contribs) on 01:30, 13 February 2006
  • Keep, There seem to be other IRC networks that have even less users or around the same amount, which continue to have a functioning article on Wikipedia. Why did this person single this one out? The fact that this article was singled out seems to indicate some kind of personal vendetta. I have reviewed the rules and consider his claim to be illegimate. As quoted, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia"; please stop trying to make it into one. Mikecnn 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "Notability" and "importance" are completely relative terms. If one were to browse the entirity of Wikipedia, one would most likely come across a dozen articles that one did not personally believe deserved their own page. As has been said, singling out the AbleNET article for deletion with the given reasoning rings of personal politics. If it causes you no harm, leave it be. Saying that the article is irrelevant or that any network does not "deserve" an article at all is, in fact, disrespectful in the way that it belittles the efforts of the network and it's members. Everything is relevant to something or someone even if that someone is not you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathbar (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, If you're going to complain about the entry being short, there's plenty of other entries to go after. There's no reason to delete it. It's important to the users, DALnet and EFnet are irrelevant to me, but that doesn't mean I'm going around trying to get their entries deleted, because I know that they are important to other people. Just because it's smaller doesn't mean it's not full of good people. Way to go Anthony for keeping up such an awesome network, we really do appreciate your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meg (talk • contribs)
  • Keep

As the Founder and Administrator I assure you that we've been in rotation since 2001. We don't have have a proliferation of clone bots and/or drones because we heavily filter our userbase to disallow these things. We respect IRC and the related communities. We contribute to the Wikipedia community as well as the IRC community. In turn, our communities respect us and the manner in which we strive to deliver quality. While we are not as superficially large as other networks we are equally relevant. This should not become a forum for irc politics because a person from one 'network' feels the need to reduce the relevance of another. AbleNET is relevant in that it continues a long chronological history dating back to some of the former great IRC Networks such as InnerNET and its community has a very distinct legacy. I don't know why we were 'singled out', nor is it appreciated. I don't want to get into a war of words. It is unethical to vandalize and troll our entry in such a manner and then to visit us to incite argument. 

[19:33] * Fro (woooo@dsl-41.hoosier.net) has joined #ablenet
[19:34] <Fro> just so you guys know, we're getting your article deleted from wikipedia

Efnet, undernet and Dalnet are not the only relevant networks and to consider them as so is a bias toward their size without respect to contribution. To delete our entry would be unfair and incite movement against other Networks listed for repeat action by this or other individuals. To use the term 'unencyclopedic' equally discredits our peers.

The mission for any 'encylopedia' is to gather information in a factual manner. To use an analogy; Switzerland is not consider irrelevant in the forum of world because of their size. To use 'size' as an argument is narrow in both thought and focus.

We respectfully implore the administration of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community to recognize our right to exist and our right to equality amongst our colleagues and peers in the IRC community as well as the Internet Community at large.

Respectfully,

Anthony Sanchez

Santavez 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I still fail to see how AbleNET is relevant to IRC. After googling AbleNET I do not see any credible mention of said network or it's connection to IRC history or lore. Please do not use IRC logs as they can be easily faked, especially when using them to further your own arguement. There are hundreds of IRC networks, that doesn't mean they all deserve a Wikipedia article. Nominating this article for deletion is not "disrespecting" your network. It is keeping the material on Wikipedia relevant. Anyone can start up an IRC network, although unless they have encyclopedic history or relevance, they should not have a Wikipedia article. That is why AbleNET has been nominated for deletion. 3H 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • An encyclopedia has no bias. It is simply a collection of factual articles. The use of Google alone does not denote Thorough research. You've already stated your opinion. Please refrain from adding addendums in an attempt to discredit the statements of others. Thank you. Santavez 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I will continue to type as I see fit. Please consult the Wikipedia help files/FAQs before inventing your own policy. Thanks :) 3H 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologize to anyone else who has become involved or noticed this thread. I consider my discussion with 3H concluded; due to the inciteful and inflammatory nature of his responses in addition to their decision to delete sections of my responses. I stand by AbleNET and it stands on its own merits. Information is no less relevant because a particular individual(s) find it lacking in importance. Our listing deserves to remain if for no other reason than for the sake of knowledge and information. Regardless of opinions toward importance, knowledge of any amount can not be discounted as irrelevant so long as it is factual. As per the Articles_for_deletion, this user has violated AfD ettiquette (see below) and I will no longer take part in his or her discussions.
"Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before   
nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised."

"Please make your recommendation only once.  If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets 
(multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to make multiple recommendations, such additional
recommendations will be discounted."

Santavez 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            • Nothing I said was inflammatory, I am merely stating the obvious about an unknown IRC network, and it's lack of relevance for inclusion in Wikipedia. Don't take it personal, as I am monitoring other listed IRC networks as well. The information you have on this article is not supported by any credible sources. It contains original research or unverified claims, which along with reasons already mentioned, further validation for this article's deletion. 3H 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are real people, not bots. the network might not be large but it's the quality of userbase that counts. also, in the AfD etiquette and AfD footer on articles for deletion log it asks to 'Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating.' in bold, which hasn't been done at all by the user who submitted us for deletion. After he submitted it, another user - User:206.106.75.41|206.106.75.41 - who posted after him, came to the network and said it was submitted. Then a few others, with ips like of the people who voted 'delete' joined the network and insulted it. It seems more like a personal issue than a good reason to nominate the page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.56.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, smells of WP:VSCA. Royal Blue 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't currently have clear standards of notability for IRC networks. I do submit though, that this nomination is probably motivated by IRC politics, and AbleNet has been extant since 2001, making it middle-aged for an IRC network. Duration of service is important in determining IRC network notability, and as such I feel we should keep. User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete like what Royal Blue said, it looks like spam/ad --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an encyclopedia of facts, especially one such as this, I believe that every fact is something that should be recorded for informational purposes. Without a listing and description of each of the IRC network, how is the IRC entry complete? As for being 'obscure,' I know that I come to Wiki just for the very reason that it will have the obscure entries other websites do not. -- For those who have an issue with the way the page is set up, could you not contact the owner and lay out said issues to him, thus prompting a change in the tone of the article so that it doesn't seem like a 'spam' or an 'ad,' instead of demanding deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.214.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete As said before, this article is not meant to be a "fact used for informational purposes", but merely a glorified advertisement for the ableNET network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.193.172 (talk • contribs)
If the article will be deleted because the majority feels the network's size or history does not merit inclusion is one thing, but to say that the article's sole purpose is to be an advertisement is grossly inaccurate and insulting. I started this article and I feel strongly about this issue, so please do not take my response to be some kind of attack against you personally. Mikecnn 03:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place for every IRC server to have their own article. --ZsinjTalk 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do not know if anyone take my word for it, but AbleNET was indeed started 5 years ago 2001 and what the article states is true, there are no fake logs and no lack of credible sources. AbleNET split from Afternet due to disputes between administrators, there were more then one net formed after the split, WhatNET was also splitted from afternet in about the same timeperiod. What might be uninteresting to some is more interesting to others, keeping the network together in 5 years qualify it in my book to be noticed on this site, not only the networks who grow fast due to illegal filetrading channels deserves their name in the spotlight. As for verification of the network age you can check the domain creation date wich is 28 May 2001. Magic_mirc.net
  • Delete nn and as per Zsinj. --Sleepyhead 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I truly dislike people who create accounts for the sole purpose of nominating an article to AfD. It only fuels the proposals to set a minimum bar. The nominating user, RB, has edited exactly one article in Wikipedia - this one. This smells like a personal feud. Please take your battles elsewhere, or at least make the effort to make some positive contributions to Wikipedia before nominating something for deletion. As far as the article itself, it seems harmless enough, and an IRC server operating since 2001 meets notability until such time as we draft notability guidelines for all the IRC articles. Turnstep 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please learn how Wikipedia operates before making claims and use the history fuction to find the person who made the AfD. I am the one who nominated the article for AfD. Don't know why the other user put his/her nomination on the top. 3H 15:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As an individual in the educational field, I find information of all types to be relevant. This article, while it may not be personally useful, is useful to the general public. From reading it, I have departed with a knowledge I otherwise did not have regarding AbleNET and its peripheral IRC networks and services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.144.235 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 February 2006
  • Comment: The closing admin might note that the original nominator was an extremely new single-purpose account, so it's not out of the question to give contributions by anons in this AfD a bit more weight than is usual. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock flood, WP:WEB. Stifle 11:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate. The only 'socks' appear to be the accounts that were registered on Feb. 13, 2006 with the distinct purpose of attempting to maliciously remove this article. i.e. 3H and RB.
      • I would like to point out the Anonymous user claming me to be a "sock" and all others who voted delete is in fact Santavez. (Just so you know Santavez, everyone can check the history to see that you posted that) He failed to sign his name to look like a different user. Admins can verify IPs for socks. 3H 15:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a network administrator, I am counting on their ability to verify IP addresses. To claim that it is I that is the 'sock' to vote delete on an article I contributed to is, for lack of a better word, ludicrous and the claims are baseless. While not as frequent as some, I have been using my account to contribute and correct grammatical errors far beyond 13 Feb 06 and while this may appear hypocritical to an extent (and for that I apologize), it is inconsiderate to verbally barrage others in the name of 'self defense'. The best I can say is that I really wish it had never come to this in the first place and I am baffled by your motivations. Santavez 21:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I agree that "sock flood" is not a reasonable deletion justification. My other reason and vote stand. Stifle 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also suspect that the nomination may be WP:POINT. Stifle 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IRC network is not a web site. Please consider amending your vote to cite another guideline. Thanks! :) User:Adrian/zap2.js 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this nomination is not appropriate. As Adrian Lamo points out, we don't have notability standards for IRC networks. Turnstep was wrong about the nominator: indeed, 3H nominated this article... after making about 5 other edits [1], and joining wikipedia minutes before. I agree with Stifle: I believe 3H is making a WP:POINT here. Furthermore, 3H is making way more contributions to this discussion than are appropriate. As for AbleNET, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, but the article isn't in bad shape, and if minor IRC networks are worthy of inclusion, I don't see why this one couldn't be included. Mangojuice 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've been using Ablenet for several years, they have a strict policy in place which keeps out illegal traffic and bots, the number of hits an IRC server gets in a search engine is completely irrelevant in this case, the size of a server has little importance, and encyclopedias are for holding information, are they not? -Ashex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.108.94 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 February 2006
  • Delete Entry is unencyclopedic, glorified ad for Ablenet IRC network in an attempt to gain users. Original authors had no intent to chronicle the history of their IRC network, but to promote it and gain more users for their service. Furthermore, history of said IRC network would be unnotable, equivalent to me putting the history of my personal family on wikipedia or the history of my small sandwich shop in Wikipedia. Keep voters appear to be a flood of Ablenet administrators as opposed to actual Wikipedia users, who are interested in keeping their advertising. 69.243.128.26 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above. WP:WEB. Does not make a claim to notability. I would advise the closing admin to take a good look at how many edits some of these keep nearly all of these users have. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:35, 20 February 2006 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AbleNET&oldid=510404473"