Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bash.org

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. The nominator's argument that this is not covered in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" was not addressed, let alone refuted. It is apparently true based on Google news, books, and scholar searches. WP:IAR seems irrelevant here as retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia, which is the only time that we ignore rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bash.org

Bash.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bash.org does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please read those notability guidelines. Just because a website is moderately popular does not mean it meets those guidelines. This article should be deleted.

1. Bash.org has not been mentioned in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

2. Bash.org has been mentioned in websites, but only in two forms: a. "Trivial coverage, such as... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." b. Unreliable, obscure websites that focus on an obscure period in which a few moderators argued with the administrators. Reliability is a key criterion for Wikipedia sources. Both of these types of sources are unacceptable according to the notability guidelines. Since there is no reliable, non-trivial source that has covered bash.org, this article should be deleted.

3. Finally, Bash is not sufficiently popular to justify overlooking the rules. According to Alexa, it's not even in the top 10,000 most popular sites. Slashdot, by contrast, is the 765th most popular. I think if Bash were in the top 1000 or even possibly the top 5000, it might be justifiable to ignore notability rules. Bash just isn't popular enough.

I think Bash.org is a fine site, and I've enjoyed it for a long time, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

PubliusPresent 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - bash.org is undoubtedly a significant part of popular culture, and is still emerging. 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.52.9 (talk)
• Delete - Even if I personally know of this website, it doesn't make it notable per reasons given by nom. Subdolous 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Come on, it's notable. Unless you've never been outside of Wikipedia I suppose. Besides, bits are free, let's not pretend Wikipedia is an actual paper encyclopedia and is what it is, a place to archive crap trivia. 166.70.27.1 18:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree about references, OR, and most importantly notability. Peaceduck 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It seems hard to believe that outside sources cannot be found for this site. JuJube 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as it is certainly notable. If the guidelines don't include Bash.org as notable, then the guidelines are ludicrous. A quick Google turns up lots of references to it, even software that uses it as a data source, and there are thousands of links to it on Usenet (mostly in people's sigs). There are at least two spinoff sites (openbash and the Russian one), as well. –Kadin2048 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete When somebody visits Wikipedia for information about this very popular and well known website, I want them to be confronted with an empty page. Not because nobody wrote anything worthwhile or verifieable about this obviously notable site. I want this information deleted because I find this website, which gets more hits in an hour than you can imagine, is not notable (according to the standards of information_killer). Delete as much useful and noteable information from Wikipedia as possible. Bit trollent
  • Comment See WP:INTERESTING and WP:POINT. Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". You may not like this, but they are policy, and regardless of what you think Wikipedia should be, Wikipedia is very clear about what it is, and it disagrees with you. If it fails WP:N, it should not stay. Subdolous 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So all the information on Wikipedia is in other, better sources? I guess don't have to go out of my way to destroy Wikipedia, as somebody has already put a stake in its heart. Outstanding. Is there a website out there that lives up to Wikipdedia's far superior past? Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm of the opinion that Google should have managed Wikipedia (or something similar), due to their mission statement "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful." It seems to suite the concept of an online and freely editable encyclopaedia, better. 58.178.215.183 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bit trollent. In over 3 years no one has managed to add a single source showing notability to this article? Stop whining and add the sources, and I'll change my !vote. Crazysuit 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was actally being sarcastic, although if I can help remove this and other useful and noteable information from Wikipedia all the better. Ever since the last time I went to show somebody a wikipedia page that had been deleted to help inform them on a subject I have vowed to destroy Wikipedia. My strategy is to destroy Wikipedia the same way deletionists are, by deleteing useful information. Want a poorly written article about a common subject? Wikipedia is here for you. Want to learn about something that is obscure even if it is noteable? Go somewhere else. Wikipedia has been ruined by deletionists. Bit trollent —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep quite notable, and has over a million Google hits. I have gone to this site several times and am amazed to even find it up for deletion. The article needs work, but is definitely notable. --Explodicle 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Explodicle and WP:IAR. It's definitely worthy of an article. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In cases of obvious notability like this one, we should IAR and forget about the need to have mainstream media sources. There are some topics which are notable, which wikipedia becomes more complete for having an article on, that do not receive mainstream media attention. Isn't that the whole idea of a user-generated encyclopedia? To reduce reliance on the mainstream media? THE KING 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable site. JJL 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Look, I enjoy bash.org, but Wikipedia's rules about notability are clear. If a subject is not covered in reliable printed sources (bash.org has not) or in reliable, non-trivial websites (bash.org has not), then Wikipedia should not have an article about it. The authors of arguments for keeping this article say that they like bash.org or that bash.org is a "popular" site. That you like the site is irrelevant--I like it, too, but that doesn't make it notable. As to the second point, it's not even that popular. See, e.g., Alexa statistics. Moreover, popularity is not a part of the notability guidelines and is therefore irrelevant. Please read those guidelines before making irrelevant arguments. I think the case is clear here. PubliusPresent 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, you'll argue that the site isn't popular by using Alexa which only counts IE hits by people who happen to have the Alexa tracking software installed. The site is notable by every definition except the WP:WEB "standards" Hansonc 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Sometimes, if something is sufficiently popular, notability can be overlooked. Bash.org is not popular enough to justify ignoring the notability rule. Alexa, because of its large statistical samples, allows for a reasonable approximation of a site's traffic and popularity, and Alexa says Bash doesn't even break the top 10,000. By contrast, Slashdot is number 765 and has almost 10 times Bash's "reach." Bash.org is not exactly obscure, but it doesn't even approach Slashdot's fame even though it's been around for almost as long. Since Bash.org is not notable, and since it's not popular enough to justify overlooking Wikipedia's notability rule, this article should be deleted. PubliusPresent 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Here's the problem ALEXA IS NOT AN ACCURATE JUDGE OF POPULARITY. Alexa only tracks users who are using IE and have the Alexa toolbar installed. If I had to guess I'd say less than 50% of the 1.5 million hits bash.org gets daily are from IE users and since I don't know a single individual who has the Alexa toolbar installed, I'd bet that the site is quite a bit under represented in your flawed popularity stats. If this vote doesn't end with a keep Wikipedia loses creditability yet again. 166.70.27.1 15:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Sorry didn't see I wasn't logged in) Hansonc 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:IAR for this particular case. Frankchn 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a huge fan of Bash, but Wikipedia's quality is more important than the fact that I like Bash. Bash is not popular enough to justify overlooking the notability rule in this case. Slashdot, for example, definitely would be, but it has 10 times the reach of Bash, according to Alexa, and is the 765th most popular site on the Internet. Bash doesn't break the top 10,000. PubliusPresent 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You don't need to say that three times for it to sink in. Bash is smaller than Slashdot. We got it. However, many of us think we should just ignore the rules because we think Wikipedia will be better off with a Bash.org article. This is why the deletion process is not automated. --Explodicle 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Severe application of the rule leads to reductio ad absurdum. The earnest pleading for "Wikipedia's quality" (by throwing out an article about a longtime web site used by millions -- because of some quibbles over the posture of references to the site in published sources) makes it hard for me to sustain my assumption of the nominator's good faith. Kestenbaum 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good faith? I don't know how to respond other than to say that I've read Bash.org since its inception and enjoy it; I have no personal interest in seeing the article deleted. I think that the notability rule is a good one and that it should be applied neutrally and consistently. This article fits the non-notability criterion (because there are no reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources) and should be deleted. PubliusPresent 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Sorry, WP:IAR doesn't trump WP:N, and if someone disagrees it's not a good application of IAR. If we start factoring in the subjective opinions of Wikipedians on whether something is notable or not, then we start getting in trouble. Let's not go there. Coverage = notable. No coverage = not notable. hbdragon88 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that WP:IAR tends to trump every rule, because it says it does. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There must be a reason behind ignoring the rules in a particular case, though. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, does including an apparently all-original research article (except for the unreliable sources about the Bash strike) about a mildly obscure website really serve to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Assume Good Faith. Lots of people want to keep it for some reason, so unless you can prove some massive campaign to subvert Wikipedia, I say keep it. --Vrmlguy 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain as owner/partner of bash.org, but I'd like to comment. This article is what originally brought me to Wikipedia, and one of the first things I learned was WP:OR, because I could not appropriately correct factual errors that, as the owner, I knew to be incorrect. It should be noted that the article has been nominated twice before, the results being keep and unanimous keep. I don't have the links handy; they were both in the VFD days. I have mixed feelings about this... on the one hand, I know how many users visit bash.org (think between 100k and 500k unique hosts per day, 1.5-2 million pageloads/day), and I know our google pagerank hovers around a 6 or 7. That being said, we have a real Catch 22... there is no doubt that bash.org is notable in the literal sense of the word, however this article has always seemed to exist outside of WP:RS and WP:N. The only thing I can offer regarding notability are the multiple diggs that all made it into the 24-hour (and possibly multiple-day) listings. It would be a shame to see this deleted, but I understand the WP:N/WP:RS problems (I often nominate other articles of the same nature). Unfortunately, this sort of topic just isn't covered by reliable sources, as it has no real-world impact beyond the web. For what it's worth, we were at one time in the top 5,000 sites on the web... traffic ebbs and flows. Alexa rank as of 07:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC): 10,107. Also, I note several innacuracies given by the nominator (age of bash.org, ignoring historical traffic and rank, etc.) Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to a 2004 Vote for Deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org) to this AfD. I can't find the second discussion, but this one was closed as a Keep. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Historical traffic, widespread impact on the web and web culture, coupled with a highly significant number of GHits, indicates to me that the site is (or at the very least, was) notable. If Alexa rankings are indeed the be-all and end-all, then historical numbers would indicate that Bash was more notable in the past than now. Fine. But Notability has no expiration date. If Bash was at any point notable, then it was notable, and coverage here is warranted. Digg isn't a reliable source as such, but it is a gauge of widespread notability. I'm not sure what coverage we could expect, other than articles headlined "Bash still online and still funny" or some such. The site is (semi!) regularly updated, but the format and purpose are static. That doesn't impinge on notability. As a caveat, I visit the site regularly and love it - and enough other people do to suggest that it is notable, despite a lack of independent coverage. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would change my vote if someone could find sources that suggest that Bash really has had a widespread impact on web culture. PubliusPresent 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment umm it has a wikipedia article? :-) Ok that's probably not going to convince you but it's worth a shot. But seriously just because it's not something that is commented on by mainstream media doesn't mean it's not notable and well known. Take this conversation for example, everyone here has heard of it independently and more importantly independent of the Wikipedia article. Bash.org will never be written about in the NY Times or WSJ but it's obviously something that longtime internet users know and even "n00bs" should have the opportunity to research its usage and history and what better place than Wikipedia? Hansonc 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as abstaining WP:COI party - Previous discussion: [keep]. I know there was one more, but I have thus far been unable to find it (it was sometime in 2005 I believe). I would like to again state that I believe this article has existed in a state of cognative dissonance because of the unique nature of web phenomenon not existing in traditionally reliable sources. I would also suggest that the mere existance of so many people showing up to voice strong opposition to deletion (every time) is an indication that the site is indeed notable in the pure sense of the word. If you could see how many instant messages and emails I get about bash.org, or saw the weblogs you'd think twice about calling it a "mildly obscure website". I also urge you to reconsider basing your argument (in part) on Alexa rankings -- a site need not be a slashdot to be notable. The major problem that I see is not with WP:N, but with WP:RS. There will likely never be a source that fully complies with WP:RS that will cover bash.org. One of the major tasks I've always tried to undertake has been ensuring factual accuracy of the article, which has been massively difficult because of WP:OR. I think the arguments that "it's not notable" (a guideline) have been obviously trumped by common sense (as the comments on this page show); I do see the problems with WP:RS (as a policy) and can only promise that if NYT or NBC want to do an interview on bash.org I will fully comply.  :-) /Blaxthos 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: WP:OR: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." So, if you see a mistake, fix it; just make sure you point out where others can go to verify your repair.--Vrmlguy 05:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment More important than any individual policy violation is just the fact that it's a bad article. It's authored primarily by one person, an administrator of the site--which violates the policies against original research and conflict of interest--and the sources are weak at best. When I saw the state of the article, my original idea was to fix it myself, but I think the article is irretrievable. The site has never been covered by any media outlet, however big or small--no local TV station, no local radio station, no small college newspaper, no alternative weekly. It seems we're in agreement that the article must be improved. The question is whether that's possible at this time. If it's not, the article should go away until someone can write something decent with a few solid sources. PubliusPresent 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question - The main thrust of your argument was that it is not notable (you used the words "mildly obscure"). Only now, after I have (intentionally) given you the WP:RS argument (gift wrapped!) have you moved in that direction. Beyond that, why are you adding a second delete !vote to this discussion? Finally, why are you now piling on WP:COI, a guideline which you haven't even mentioned until I disclosed it (twice)? Are there specific allegations of serious COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, etc.)? /Blaxthos 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I voted once for delete. What are you talking about? Reliable sources and notability are inextricably wrapped, and both are part of the original articles; if there are no reliable, non-trivial sources about a subject, a subject is not notable. Considering the ease with which you link Wikipedia policies, I'm sure you know that. Are you deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article, which you have a vested interest in keeping? PubliusPresent 09:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Follow up - I am trying to insure that things are accurately represented. I clearly notified everyone that I am the owner of the site (twice), and clearly stated that I recognize the cognitive dissonance which has thus far ameleorated the WP:RS/WP:N concerns. I would also note that I was the one who brought up the WP:COI and the WP:RS problems -- your nomination and additional comments focused on WP:N. What is of great concern to me (and to other editors who have commented on such here) is the vehemence with which you are prosecuting this deletion, oft repeating your points ad infinitum, and slipped in a second delete vote after your nomination. Others have noted that your shepharding of the AfD smells of bad faith; I have treated it in good faith (and handed you additional ammunition, so to speak) because I want the AfD to be both fair and wholly encompassing the issues surrounding the article. You, on the other hand, have now implicitly and explicitly stated that my COI has significance. I ask again three questions: (1) Are there specific allegations of COI concerns (WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM)? (2) Why did you try to slide in a second !vote? (3) Why are you now accusing me of "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article", especially given the fact that I was the editor who brought up both WP:RS and WP:COI? Thanks. /Blaxthos 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Follow-follow up On points 2 and 3: your disingenuous argument is that I voted twice! What an absurd claim. I tried to make a second paragraph in a comment and the formatting was messed up as a result, so I edited it to make it all one paragraph. This is the second time you've linked to that edit and called it a "second vote." Now that is, I think, evidence of bad faith on your part. Your primary evidence for bad faith on my part is that I disagree with you. As I've said several times now, the original research, the lack of reliable sources, and the lack of notability--it's all wrapped into one problem, which is this. An owner of Bash.org (Blaxthos, you) created most of the article's content (original research), and you have no reliable sources to back up what you say. The content is, as such, unverifiable. Should the article be deleted because of COI? No, because I don't think that's a major problem with the article. The article should be deleted due to the lack of reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and lack of notability. Finally, about repeating myself--actually, when I thought people raised legitimate objections, I edited my original articles for deletion and even some of my previous responses to address those objections. PubliusPresent 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you all but ignored the questions I presented, I no longer feel this thread is worth continuing. The diffs above clearly show a second delete, and simple checking of timestamps (or diffs) should show that I was the one who brought up both WP:COI and WP:RS problems, and should assauge any worries you may have that I'm "deliberately making disingenuous arguments to protect this article" -- if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't have handed you both WP:RS and WP:COI on a sliver platter. Best of luck. /Blaxthos 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you stand by your claim that I voted twice. I didn't realize that a line break would put my two paragraphs in two different places. I wrote "delete" once and had one signature. I voted once. Period. You're embarrassing yourself. PubliusPresent 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, your first !vote was the nomination. Your second !vote, more than ten hours after your nomination, was your addition of a delete comment (after eleven editors had commented on the nomination) as if you were not the nominator. I would counter that an editor who makes more edits to his first AfD than he has for the rest of the project combined, changes rationales, accuses other editors of bad faith when he is handed additional rationale for deletion, and seems to not understand our norms and mores embarasses himself more than I have. Hopes this clears up your confusion. (I'm really done now... just wanted to make sure you understood that it has nothing to do with a line break). /Blaxthos 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is not a voting process. Votes don't get tallied, so it makes no difference, anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I haven't accused anyone of bad faith except you. In retrospect, I should not have argued that Bash was non-notable (even though it is non-notable) because it sounds offensive, particularly, I'm sure, to one of its managers. What I should have referenced is the reliable sources policy, which probably would not have ruffled your feathers so much. For that I apologize. I've never changed rationales, and only edited my original nominating articles for clarity. If I've referenced several different Wikipedia policies, it's because I believe the bash.org article violates them. PubliusPresent 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment Bad argument. Have you ever seen mainstream media coverage of Goatse.cx I sure hope not! It's an internet site with a specific audience. The pure traffic to this AfD by people who know bash.org should support WP:N. I'll also point out that it's easier to destroy than it is to fix so AfDing this just because you don't know how to fix it is the wrong way to use AfD. I'm also willing to bet if this actually gets deleted it will be recreated in an even worse form so the Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't in this case. Hansonc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If it is recreated, I'll tag it for deletion per WP:CSD#G4. In fact, I'll watchlist this right now so I can prevent this from happening. If it gets too persistent, an admin will happily salt it. Don't argue to keep it just because something worse might happen. The admins can deal with it. hbdragon88 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - All of that is a bit premature, isn't it? We haven't even gotten through 48 hours of the AfD, with keep outnumbering delete by four (by my count, as of 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)). /Blaxthos 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• LOLOLOL We don't vote, we discuss. If there were ten delete arguments but the keep argument offered a real great reason why the article should be kept, it would be kept. Likewise, if there were ten keep arguments but the delete argument was better than all the keeps, it would be deleted. Anyway, it just seemed that the user was basing his comment on what would happen if it was deleted, and I was just saying, trust me, it won't be a huge problem. hbdragon88 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, if there were a whole bunch of keeps and the delete argument was "better" in the eyes of the admin, the article would still be kept. A consensus must be formed in order for action to be taken. Administrators are more like janitors than judges; they just enact what we've already agreed upon. --Explodicle 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's where policies such as WP:SNOW come in. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but there are several good arguments both ways. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually... in the Goatse.cx article, I see references at Snopes.com, Time magazine, the BBC, and CNN. I didn't say just "mainstream media" either. Any reliable source, per Wikipedia policy, will do. PubliusPresent 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Cleanup is not a valid reason to delete an article. Conflict of Interest is not a valid reason to delete an article, if the article is in salvageable condition (which it is). COI is a valid reason to moderate potentially biased input with valid, NPOV edits that restore balance and neutrality to the article. The argument that the article should be deleted due to COI on the part of a primary editor (Who - to his credit! - has been open and honest about the association, and has made contributions to other areas of the project) is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. I concur that, like Goatse.cx, a site may be notable without independent coverage. I note further that the high level of interest in this debate is also not a reason to Keep - though it does say something about the subject that we've had such a lengthy debate in just over 24 hours. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why does anyone use Alexa as a definition of notability? Why not use wind direction or something else equally random? I've heard of it, even if I don't frequent it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs)
• Delete No verifiability. No reliable sources. Clear COI. Notability is not the main issue here. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The nom's rationale focused on the Notability issue, which is why I think it's gotten so much discussion here. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand it may not be considered "notable" enough to meet Wikipedia Guidelines, but I have to wonder: who are we hurting by keeping this page here? If it is informative, useful and accurate, why must it go? Since so many users have taken the time and effort to create an accurate, useful and informative page, why delete it on the grounds that the subject is "not notable enough"? What harm are we doing by leaving it as it is? - 82.6.124.104 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I'd like to rebut the 'popularity' and 'obscurity' arguements. Bash may not be as popular today as it was in the past, but what Alexa ratings don't measure is reknown. You'll scarcly find an IRC-goer who hasn't, in some way, been introduced to Bash. I'd say Bash falls under notability as much as any other website. There's being critical and there's being petty, and while not every two-bit website should be mentioned on Wikipedia; a website with interest to (at least) 965,692 IRC users (as of SearchIRC statistics at this time) is relevant enough. 212.235.15.78 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: If Slashdot is so low on the Alexa, then I don't know why we are basing notability facts using Alexa stats. mimithebrain 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Alexa stats are not notable enough or reliable enough to use in judging this. Let's not forget this is a NICHE site, not a mainstream site like wikipedia or bloomberg.com so obviously it's not going to have as bigger hits as other sites. HOWEVER, it is notable in that the site itself was the FIRST of this type and has been around for almost as long as slashdot.org and other "geek" sites. - 202.10.80.69 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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.