Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRCmax

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRCmax

Delete. Spam. CharacterZero 06:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Nonsense. Kukini 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and per WP:WEB (no assertion or proof provided of notability). --TeaDrinker 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable website, advertisement --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisment for a non-notable web-based something, written in the first person by a sysadmin. WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment How exactly do you think WP:WEB applies here? We are talking about an IRC network. It isn't content and it isn't distributed on the web. kotepho 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wash it off. Delete the patent nonsense.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, urgh, get it out of my sight. Disgusting. JIP | Talk 14:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable IRC network. Info from netsplit

17:21 [ircmax] -!- Welcome to the IRCMax IRC Network
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Your host is IRC.IRCMax.NET, running version Unreal3.2.3
17:21 [ircmax] -!- This server was created Tue Jan 24 2006 at 04:47:52 CST
17:21 [ircmax] -!- There are 42 users and 23 invisible on 9 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 operator(s) online
17:21 [ircmax] -!- 25 channels formed
17:21 [ircmax] -!- I have 14 clients and 7 servers
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Local Users: 14  Max: 287
17:21 [ircmax] -!- Current Global Users: 65  Max: 544
17:21 [ircmax] -!- - IRC.IRCMax.NET Message of the Day -

Not to mention that the article is horrible too. kotepho 22:19, 22 March 2006 (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.