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. Opinions of low-participation IPs are given little weight, leaving a narrow consensus for deletion. No prejudice against refunding to draft or userspace in the event that someone wants salvage content for use elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat daemons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a bunch of non notable daemons, your average software related WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOR. I would also support redirecting but thus far ahs been contested. Anything relevant shoudl be covered in the target article and we should leave the original research behind. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whilst the daemons themselves may be considered non-notable the organisations which write them and use these individual softwares in many cases are - see Creator/Network column - for example DALnet IRCnet EFnet Quakenet Undernet OFTC freenode. The suggested remedy of by blanking article and redirection to IRCd is not appropriate as the latter article does not contain this information. NB: This article was previously AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_IRCds Will-h (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times have more than changed since 2007 and "comparisons" of lists are WP:NOR. It's been awhile since you've edited, so perhaps you shoudl also read WP:BOLD before basically accusing me of vandalism since there is long standing consensus to redirect things to appropriate targets versus deletion. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any original research here. Everything on this page is likely well documented by the authors of their software. I'd understand if you had complained for the lack of references, but you're going a bit too far with NOR. koszik (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the sources that support the comparisons. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just download every IRCd there and go through documentation or RTFS, simple as that. Not in mood nor have time? ENOLUCK. Just leave it then. Borg, 21:33, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: Fails the GNG, NOR and WP:SYNTH. Everything on the page is "likely" well documented? Either it is (in which case the article is about a hundred source shy) or it isn't, in which case the article creator just made it all up, and we've got a WP:NFT violation to boot. That being said, being someone who was active at AfD from 2005 onward, a lot of garbage decisions were made then that had far less to do with policy than with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS and other similar crackpot notions. A decision made in 2007 would not have bound editors in 2008, let alone now. Ravenswing 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not made up, its comparision of Open Source software. It takes a lot of efort to build such list. I see a lot of VPN comparision or P2P comparision and its all right. Just do NOT put your personal bias for it. Do not like IRC? Do not use nor read about it. Period. Borg, 21:36, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. A lot of usefull information even if not fully sourced. It helps to make educated choice about software you want to use. Borg, 21:37, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. It doesn't meet any criteria listed for WP:LISTCRUFT: the content is easily verifiable, well defined and reasonably well maintained. Neither does it meet the standard for WP:NOR any more than any other article, since all information is simply compiled from the documentation of all listed IRC daemons. welterde, 130.255.108.111 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — 130.255.108.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks more of a catalogue than an encyclopedic article. Most of the entries are non notable as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is really too much of a product listing. Notice how practically every "comparison of..." article is composed of almost all bluelinked material - i.e., entries that are have been judged notable on their own merits? E.g. the two See Also links on that very page, Comparison of instant messaging protocols and Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Or picking another format at random, Comparison of programming languages (list comprehension). That ensures that we don't end up with product listings that are mostly sourced to their own promo material. AKA spam bait. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My rationale for keeping it is WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARY. Its an underdeveloped part of Wikipedia, but it is an area that has a great deal of potential. This list could be a building block towards this. Per WP:CLN: "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks". This is far more than a rudimentary list of links, which in my mind makes it all the more reasonable to keep it as a good building block on which more can be created. I also believe WP:SUMMARY is relevant here. A common pattern on Wikipedia is Summary Article/List >> Group Article/List >> Detailed Article; this would be a good building block at the top of that chain.   // Timothy :: talk  17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.