Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbleNET

AbleNET

• Delete, very small user base, which may be made up of clones/bots. Not notable for listing on Wikipedia. Every IRC network that comes along does not need a Wikipedia entry, only those that are notable. (IE: efnet, undernet, dalnet, ect) 3H 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I logged on to this network and it only had under 70 users. I think this network is too obscure to be worthy of a wikipedia listing as there are hundreds of minor IRC networks about the same size. At the least, it ought to be removed from the block of IRC networks since it doesn't belong alongside Dalnet and the like. 206.106.75.41 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, The userbase are legitimate users, but it is a small network. Perhaps removal from the sidebar is justified, but I think total deletion of the article isn't necessary. Perrinw0lf 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Logged onto network and it has nearly 200 users. Know most of them and very few are bots, rest are actual users. No harm being done at all. Would recommend to keep it same as every one elses as effort has been made to do this page.--81.100.49.60 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I say keep it. A lot of good people on the server, and the owner is very friendly even though he loves pointing on spelling flaws. Is it really hurting anything to keep it listed?

(I edited the beginnings of the entries to reflect the votes thus far) 3H 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per norm. unencyclopedic. 67.43.193.172 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Size is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, the goal of which is to collect a through reference of information. Were any reference to exlude a subject simply because it was obscure, it would have defeated its own purpose, which is to provide factual information on things we don't know already. It is "unencyclopaedic" to exclude information, not to retain it.

• Delete, not notable. no importance or information worthy of a Wiki.
• Keep, There seem to be other IRC networks that have even less users or around the same amount, which continue to have a functioning article on Wikipedia. Why did this person single this one out? The fact that this article was singled out seems to indicate some kind of personal vendetta. I have reviewed the rules and consider his claim to be illegimate. As quoted, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia"; please stop trying to make it into one. Mikecnn 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep

As the Founder and Administrator I assure you that we've been in rotation since 2001. We don't have have a proliferation of clone bots and/or drones because we heavily filter our userbase to disallow these things. We respect IRC and the related communities. We contribute to the Wikipedia community as well as the IRC community. In turn, our communities respect us and the manner in which we strive to deliver quality. While we are not as superficially large as other networks we are equally relevant. This should not become a forum for irc politics because a person from one 'network' feels the need to reduce the relevance of another. AbleNET is relevant in that it continues a long chronological history dating back to some of the former great IRC Networks such as InnerNET and its community has a very distinct legacy. I don't know why we were 'singled out', nor is it appreciated. I don't want to get into a war of words. It is unethical to vandalize and troll our entry in such a manner and then to visit us to incite argument.

[19:33] * Fro (woooo@dsl-41.hoosier.net) has joined #ablenet
[19:34] <Fro> just so you guys know, we're getting your article deleted from wikipedia

Efnet, undernet and Dalnet are not the only relevant networks and to consider them as so is a bias toward their size without respect to contribution. To delete our entry would be unfair and incite movement against other Networks listed for repeat action by this or other individuals. To use the term 'unencyclopedic' equally discredits our peers.

The mission for any 'encylopedia' is to gather information in a factual manner. To use an analogy; Switzerland is not consider irrelevant in the forum of world because of their size. To use 'size' as an argument is narrow in both thought and focus.

We respectfully implore the administration of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community to recognize our right to exist and our right to equality amongst our colleagues and peers in the IRC community as well as the Internet Community at large.

Respectfully,

Anthony Sanchez

Santavez 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I still fail to see how AbleNET is relevant to IRC. After googling AbleNET I do not see any credible mention of said network or it's connection to IRC history or lore. Please do not use IRC logs as they can be easily faked, especially when using them to further your own arguement. There are hundreds of IRC networks, that doesn't mean they all deserve a Wikipedia article. Nominating this article for deletion is not "disrespecting" your network. It is keeping the material on Wikipedia relevant. Anyone can start up an IRC network, although unless they have encyclopedic history or relevance, they should not have a Wikipedia article. That is why AbleNET has been nominated for deletion. 3H 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • An encyclopedia has no bias. It is simply a collection of factual articles. The use of Google alone does not denote Thorough research. You've already stated your opinion. Please refrain from adding addendums in an attempt to discredit the statements of others. Thank you. Santavez 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I will continue to type as I see fit. Please consult the Wikipedia help files/FAQs before inventing your own policy. Thanks :) 3H 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I apologize to anyone else who has become involved or noticed this thread. I consider my discussion with 3H concluded; due to the inciteful and inflammatory nature of his responses. I stand by AbleNET and it stands on its own merits. Information is no less relevant because a particular individual(s) find it lacking in importance. Our listing deserves to remain if for no other reason than for the sake of knowledge and information. Regardless of opinions toward importance, knowledge of any amount can not be discounted as irrelevant so long as it is factual. Santavez 01:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)