Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/InspIRCd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page is very much notable, see book sources. This has been bought up before as AFD and binned for this very reason. 82.20.212.244 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There aren't book sources, only one book source. Because InspIRCd is not the subject of the book, it is trivial coverage, and specifically excluded from notability by the guidelines. To quote: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.[..are excepted from notability]" From Wikipedia:Notability (software). Also, 82.20.212.244 is a frequent contributor to the InspIRCd article, and is in fact, Braindigitalis, the project's lead developer. cacophony ◄► 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course i am braindigitalis. That's why i signed in, so you can tell that i'm one and the same and that i have nothing to hide from you. Please stop trying to turn everything i do against me, i have better things to do than fight through this red tape. I will take my effort to other articles and let baby have his ball, or, i will just stop contributing to wikipedia. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. From this point on i am stepping back from this discussion, with all the personal attacks of being accused of being a terrorist, being accused of hiding my identity, etc. You can resolve this yourselves, and i dont care of the outcome. You won't see another comment from me on this talk page, or on the AfD page. Braindigitalis 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FreeBSD Port maintained upstream. Also. have you read the book to know it "lists without comment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.225.111 (talk • contribs)

The notability guidelines specify that it must be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, which InspIRCd is not. cacophony ◄► 06:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The following is the entirety of InspIRCd's inclusion in '"Securing IM and P2P Applications for the Enterprise", by Syngress;

• "The most efficient way to deal with these bots is via server-side filtering, for example the filtering systems of IRC server software such as UnrealIRCd and InspIRCd."
• "Two filters are UnrealIRCd (www.unrealircd.com) and InspIRCd (www.inspircd.org)."

That's simply trivial coverage. cacophony ◄► 06:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for software also say they are no longer relevant. There is also an extensive review on SoftPedia located at [[1]].owine

The notability guidelines for software are all we have to go on, so that's what I'm following. Regarding the Softpedia review, the notability guidelines specifically exclude "software listings on download sites". In addition to this, it's a review on a website. Had the review appeared in a publication, like a magazine, then it would be sufficient for one of the multiple published works required for notability. cacophony ◄► 06:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a software listing. It is a review by an editor of the site. Not a user-submitted review, not a listing. A review by an editor of a very reputable download site. To claim it is simply not notable due to the fact that it is not in a paper publication is evidence to the lack of relevance those notability guidelines serve. Is a CNet review considered trivial? Is the internet simply not a reputable source of information and every review of a product is trivial?owine

Personally, I don't consider a CNet review a reputable source of notability, because they review whatever software is uploaded to their site, regardless of what it is. It would be significantly more notable if it were actually a news story on CNet, or Softpedia, rather than just a software review. Standing on its own, a software review on a download site does not meet notability requirements. cacophony ◄► 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"If some software doesn't meet or isn't known to meet the above criteria, the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable" "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer." as written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28software%29 as mentioned. FreeBSD has a version in ports as do Gentoo in portage. 220.233.225.111 — 220.233.225.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The software in question isn't included in FreeBSD or Gentoo distributions, but is in fact an unincluded, optional package simply included in the available package database. cacophony ◄► 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it not meet notability requirements? The example in the outdated guidelines uses a software review to define a piece of software as notable. Is it simply the fact that it is on the internet and not in a published hard form? What makes a project like UnrealIRCd or IRCD-Hybrid notable but not one like InspIRCd? InspIRCd is also featured in the Comparison_of_IRC_daemons. owine

The fact that other articles exist means nothing, and is in fact completely irrelevant. More information on this guideline can be found at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. cacophony ◄► 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is just as notable as ircd-ratbox and other IRCd software listed. If you are going to mark one as AfD you should mark all IRC related material as being non-notable. This page is probably more notable due to the project it describing being on the cutting edge of innovation and actually making positive change in the IRC community. My advice would be to improve the page, not delete it. --nenolod (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other articles exist means nothing, and is in fact completely irrelevant. More information on this guideline can be found at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. cacophony ◄► 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review those articles and inform me how they are notable in comparison to InspIRCd. If they arn't I would expect to soon see a AFD notice on their pages as surely wikipedia is not biased, and they have been brought to your attention. 220.233.225.111

I'm not going to involve other articles in this, because comparing two articles is irrelevant, inappropriate, and against Wikipedia guidelines. The article in question is InspIRCd, and it's notability will be judged on it's own merits, rather than being judged relative to other Wikipedia articles. cacophony ◄► 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, can you prove that InspIRCd is not relevant to the IRC community? As I see it, it fully meets WP:Notability. I agree that the article right now feels like an advertisement, which is why I marked it as being on notability-watch, but, AfD is surely over the top if the article can be corrected. Wikipedia exists to provide as much information as possible on a large number of topics, so it would be a shame to see this article deleted just because you feel that it's not notable enough. Please provide summary proof that the article and the project's contributions to IRC are not notable enough for mention in Wikipedia. Before getting political with me, do note that I am not affiliated formally with InspIRCd in any way besides some occasional doc fixes. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You want me to prove that InspIRCd is not relevant to the IRC community? That's absurd. The onus rests on those in favor of keeping the article to prove that it is relevant to the IRC community. So far, it does not meet the software notability requirements. If you want raw statistics, however, InspIRCd is not even in the top 25 most used IRCds, as can be viewed here. cacophony ◄► 07:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SearchIRC is not a notable metric of IRC software popularity as it only samples a fraction of the community. As such, I would consider it equally unnotable to a CNet/Softpedia software review. Again, I'm waiting for your reasoning on non-notability. If your goal is indeed genuine, then you will certaintly provide advice on how to improve the article to your expectations, correct? It would be a shame for you not to, after all. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SearchIRC samples over 4,000 IRC networks, well in excess of the standard 1000-sample survey size. cacophony ◄► 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SearchIRC specifically caters to hobbyist admins. It is not a fair benchmark. More streamlined networks prefer to use netsplit.de for their stats. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how SearchIRC "specifically caters to hobbyist admins", but even if netsplit.de did IRCd usage statistics, which I can't find at the moment, it would be an insufficient sample, as Netsplit only indexes 800 networks, well below the standard 1000-sample survey size, and especially below the 4242 networks that SearchIRC indexes. cacophony ◄► 07:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are unable to see this, then perhaps you are not qualified to call AfD on the article, as InspIRCd clearly is notable by community involvement. SearchIRC has a known history in the community of catering specifically to hobbyist admins. If you don't know this, then how are you qualified to call AfD on this article? I would say that a better option for you is to cancel the AfD request and turn this over to someone qualified on this topic to rectify the problem. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're free to explain why a 4,242 unit sample of irc networks is insufficient in determining IRCd popularity. In addition, mere "community involvement" does not denote notability. I'm qualified to initiate this AfD because the subject in question does not meet notability requirements. If you disagree with this, then by all means, quote the exact notability guideline from Wikipedia:Notability (software) that applies to this article, and explain how it does, noting the specific sources that fall under the guidelines. cacophony ◄► 08:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Lets start off with the top of WP:Notability (software): "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. A historical page usually is one that is no longer maintained or no longer relevant, or one for which consensus is unclear." Funny that. If that doesn't make it invalid, fine, carrying on: "2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer.". FreeBSD package available. Thanks for playing. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: while that page lists brain as the maintainer, ports are maintained mostly by lawrence and novel at FreeBSD. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Inspircd is not included in any major operating system distribution. Examples of packages that are included in major operating system distributions are gcc, glibc, apache, kde, etc. They come on the CD, they are (usually) installed by default. Being available for separate download and installing from the package management system does not count as being included in the distribution, as it can simply be added by anybody, in this case the lead developer of InspIRCd. cacophony ◄► 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that inclusion in FreeBSD's ports system is not notable, even though the notability page says it is a qualifier? Are you on drugs? --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability page says that the qualification for possible notability is that the software is included in a major software distribution. That means being in the main install, being on the CD, etc. Being in a separate package management system does not count as being included in the distribution. And, just because you asked, no, I am not on drugs. cacophony ◄► 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification on both counts. However, do you honestly think deleting this article will make it go away? It will just be recreated at a later date. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps at that later date, InspIRCd will have become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not today, though. Not today. cacophony ◄► 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not willing to comment on your motives for going directly to AfD with this article, then I must question your motives for doing so. As such, I hereby advise that the AfD be retroactively canceled and the article placed on notability watch until it is rewritten to not read as an advertisement. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This software article was put on AfD not because it reads like an advertisement, but because it does not meet the notability requirements, and because it was created by the developers of the software. For more specific information, see my AfD summary at the top of the page. If you have any more published sources that InspIRCd is the main subject of, feel free to mention them now. cacophony ◄► 07:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of discussions on the SearchIRC forums about InspIRCd. As a fairly new work, this isn't as many as other IRCds but it is still enough to establish notability. Additionally, there have been several threads on IRC-Junkie as well. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum posting does not denote notability, especially when there is as little activity as in the links you just posted. In case you didn't notice, the first result for the first link is "im not using inspircd", which just emphasizes the uselessness of using search results to try to denote notability. cacophony ◄► 07:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum posting does denote notability via community recognition. Usage of the software is not relevant in this spectrum. If you are going to argue that, then I should point out that only a few thousand people run any form of IRCd at all, so if only twenty to thirty people use InspIRCd it is still notable within the IRC community. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mere forum posting does not denote notability, nor does mere "community recognition". I may point out that, of the 7,459 servers SearchIRC currently indexes, less than 12 of them are running InspIRCd. cacophony ◄► 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was deleted by Nenolod and re-added by myself. cacophony ◄► 08:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice it while resolving an edit conflict. --nenolod Image:Sigpaw.gif (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting those lists are PER VERSION, not per software, so there may well be 6 using 1.1.8 6 using 1.1.5 1 using 1.1.0 etc. NOT a accurate source.220.233.225.111

Taking that into account, there are still over 10 IRCds that are used more. The <12/7459 statistic remains unchanged. cacophony ◄► 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out the flaw in that method, You cannot claim that statistic to be anywhere near accurate as a number of networks are either private, or do not list on SearchIRC, Only networks who CHOOSE to promote themself their get listed. you say "The <12/7459 statistic remains unchanged." yet there are atleast 12 network admins on our channel who run InspIRCd, I can think of atleast one large British company who use it as an internal communication method after migrating from Unreal due to the innovations mentioned by nenolod, innovations that have forced a change in the way Unreal itself is being developed, moving to mimic the modular system being used by InspIRCd. 220.233.225.111

Also to note InspIRCds unique 'hotpatch' ability, users arn't required to update their IRCd version in the event an exploit or patch is applied, they can safely recompile and 'reload' the offending area without forcing an IRCd upgrade or restart. As such, there are a lot of InspIRCd network which run varying versions of InspIRCd because they havn't had a _NEED_ to upgrade fully to a later version, we could have 10 people using every version since 1.1.0 out there (Note this is hypothetical, and due to the severe lack of data would be difficult to prove), there could be in excess of 100 servers out there with nothing showing on SearchIRC because not enough people were using a specific version. As far as usage goes, I can name several networks running versions of Unreal in which they have 5+ servers and under 20 users, IRCds for the most part are not interoperable so if server 1 is running IRCd X, server Y must ALSO run IRCd X if they wish to link, the Number of SERVERS running InspIRCd is a bad way to count in comparison to the number of NETWORKS running InspIRCd, for all we know the 12 servers running Hybrid6/PTlink6 may in fact be 1 network with 3 users. To finish, I'd just like to point out that i'm a co-author of InspIRCd, lead developer, and web designer / maintainer. With that in mind, I consider being given the title of 'Chief Forum Administrator' quite offensive FrostyCoolSlug 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cacophany, are you an admin here? just wondering about this due to this comment on vote stacking of AfD on your talk page. Being a newbie to wikipedia's policies, what exactly does this mean? 217.37.54.13 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thought here: Gentoo does not usually come 'on a CD'. Where it does, this CD contains a recent image of the portage tree. In the portage tree is InspIRCd 1.0.7. Therefore, InspIRCd is notable as it 'comes on an operating CD'. It is not installed by default as this operating system installs nothing but gcc and baseutils by default -- no OS installs an ircd by default, any ircd. Also, i could very easily add another book by Syngress Inc. which also mentions InspIRCd, plus as stated, reviews on software sites. (not just listings).217.37.54.13 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, having an ebuild in the portage tree does not count as being included. The ebuild is not the software itself, just a small file with instructions on where and how to download the software in question, and how to install it. As such, since the software itself is not actually on the CD, it doesn't count as being included on the CD. Second of all, and I don't know how to stress this enough, IF YOU HAVE MORE RELIABLE SOURCES TO ADD, PLEASE ADD THEM NOW, ASAP. Thanks, cacophony ◄► 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to Gentoo (and others), It is being worked into the Apple's OSX server for the 10.5 release. 220.233.225.111

...and to further that, inspircd is being worked on getting into both debian and ubuntu. And btw, the time I made that change I wasn't a team member. Dmbtech 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)