Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to the Internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to the Internet.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

See also: computer-related deletions.

Contents

[edit] Internet

[edit] TROFL

TROFL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot possibly be attributed to a Reliable Source J293339 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —J293339 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Whatever was there is gone now and is now a redirect to a Wiktionairy page. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete last version that had any content is clearly a neologism that hasn't caught on. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TROFL&oldid=122462003 Initial version makes it look like it was something someone made up one day. -- Mark Chovain 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Soft redirect equivalent of a R1 Speedy, except R1 does not apply to soft redirects. Nothing about the term is present at the Wiktionary target, so no real point in maintaining this soft redirect over to there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AustNet

AustNet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article had a prod removed by an anonymous user stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed. I fail to see the resoning behind these statements as this article fails WP:WEB assuming IRC networks fall under this. Original prod created for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia " Also note many other IRC Networks are being proposed for deletion under notability, see IRC Network COI Virek (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed", Huh? You think by pointing out it is not very clear what Wikipedia is or isn't I am trying to hide behind a policy? WikiPolicy? WikiPolizia? I do not believe it has crossed your mind at any point to attempt to better any of the IRC Network articles you have marked prod/afd. I just noticed there may be a conflict of interest on breathing as it seems everyone editing the page is doing it, but I'm not sure where to report it! I need scissors! 61! 203.122.246.87 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable - this search brings up no reliable third party coverage. -- Mark Chovain 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable - its existence appears to be commercially motivated. Murtoa (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it's necessarily relevant if it is commercially motivated, otherwise WP:CORP would be a hell of a lot shorter :P. Notability is the real concern here. -- Mark Chovain 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as Wikipedia continues to prove it cares little about building the sum of all human knowledge, I will be sure to expunge from my feeble mind all knowledge Wikipedia deems not noteable, rather than attempt to improve it as suggested. In just 4 days time the article will have been marked stub for 3 years. In just 4 days time the article will have existed for 3 years. Such a commercially motivated article must have made squillions in the 3 years it was neglected on this website. I just googled for AustNet and found absolutely nothing! Then I realised I suck. 203.122.246.87 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - commerciality or conflict of interest aren't the relevant points. The relevant point is notability - AustNet has not been the subject of coverage in reliable independent sources, is not groundbreaking in its field and has not won any notable awards. In the absence of an assertion of notability all that remains is a product listing, which also falls foul of WP:NOT#INTERNET. None of this is to suggest that Austnet is not important or a worthwhile service - only that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, has specific policies determining what is and is not included and this article doesn't meet them. You mention that the article could be improved rather than deleted. If you have sourced material that could improve the article by both asserting notability and referencing it, go right ahead before this AfD closes and chances are it will be saved. Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - out of all these, I used to use AustNet most back in the IRC heyday! I can't believe people want to delete this one, maybe those people never used it? It was certainly well known at the time with thousands of users for half a decade or so, and is still used today AFAIK, albiet less. I'm past IRC (don't even go there) and haven't been on in ages but from a historical IRC perspective, that template wouldn't be complete without AustNet. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (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.

[edit] Interconnect agreement

Interconnect agreement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Expand, then keep: This article needs expansion, rather than deletion. Interconnect agreements are typically complex, involving coordination of routing policies, acceptable use policies, traffic balancing requirements, etc. etc. Legal requirements are often an issue: for example, networks may be forced by law to interconnect with their competitors. A good article can certainly be written on this topic. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment yes, that's what I thought, before I actually tried to expand it and find any reliable sources to discuss such issues. It's a geeky topic, and wikipedia has a WP:BIAS toward such issues. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There ought to be some sources available for this. The article itself is written reasonably clearly and seems free from covert commercial agendas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)