Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnrealIRCd

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. John254 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd

The subject matter is unnotable, too few references, the article's content is stale, and the project hasn't had a stable release in over two years. --Jacob Myers _{(Flame me!)} 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd is likely to become vaporware, if not already, based upon the news at UnrealIRCd's Homepage All articles specific to one ircd don't seem to meet notability requirements. Seeing how the only three remaining articles specific to an ircd that remain, are ircu, InspIRCd, and UnrealIRCd. I fail to see how they can be notable. While ircu is used on QuakeNet and UnderNet (the two networks with the largest user count, according to SearchIRC), InspIRCd is not used on top networks, UnrealIRCd is used on SlashNet, as stated in the SlashNet article, and ircd-ratbox has no article, where it is used on EFNet.

In my opinion, all specific ircd articles should be removed. While we have a page on comparison, perhaps there should be another page describing in detail, the main ircd's in-use (ircd-hybrid/ratbox, ircd-charybdis, InspIRCd, ircu, UnrealIRCd, 2.8.11, and others), rather than 3 advertisements on specific ircd's. Cfuenty1 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I updated George Sampson a lot of its content was stale too. That's not a good reason for deletion as staleness has no bearing on notability or potential for fixing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The references are a little sparse, but that's par for the course. More importantly, neither the software's lack of recent updates nor its questionable future are reasons for deletion - both have absolutely no bearing on notability. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references are sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Arguments about merit, rather than demonstrated notability in the field, are uncompelling. Wily D 12:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the nom's notes against the article aren't reason enough for deletion; they should be reason to improve it. Project doesn't appear halted, as per recent news announcements on product's page. Notability seems asserted by references and text. Rurik (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 9 January 2009 (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.