Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIchan

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. The source that was added still does not satisfy WP:WEB, and the two external links aren't to independent sources (meaning that WP:V is still not met). --Coredesat 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IIchan

IIchan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy deletion under A7 contested. No assertion of notability is made, article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Should be deleted. RWR8189 01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete unless... more sources are quickly added. As of now it doesnt have nearly enough sources to be argued as notable.Ganfon 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I tagged this as needing sources back in November and no attempts have been made to add sources. Just fyi. Wickethewok 03:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Little notability is asserted, and there is no third-party sourcing. I wouldn't speedy this, as Google hits lead me to believe that it could be possible to find reliable sources. -- Kicking222 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, should have been speedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, I can't find any media mentions whatsoever. I can't find any non-blog mentions either. I searched for common newspaper names and IIchan too, nothing. I can't find any reputable non-blog articles, plus the whole article is WP:OR. With no sources it can't even be stubbed. --Quirex 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the prevailing sentiment should be reconsidered. There are 39,000 English-language ghits for llchan, most of them still live. Almost all of them are postings on various blogs, IRC chanels, and the like. About 5% refer to the boards themselves, and the rest to the content for them. I do not think it is reasonable to find much on this topic in other media.

It is very strange of WP not to accomodate the development of new media, published in whatever way that media is naturally published. We may need to evelop new criteria and this is where we should start. The concept of such software is surely notable--there are a number of related articles. This is a derivative of what seems to be the most widely used program, and notable as such

There is no problem finding material--the difficulty with V is only the nature of the sources. It is time WP recognized that this is 2007, not 2004. Books write about books, and blogs write about blogs. I've added a ref from what seems to be a reliable 3rd party online journal, and a good third party directory refered to elsewhere in WP. I think that solves the basic problem. Documentation of many of the details will come from appropriate sources for the subject, once WP learns to accept them.

I once more am grateful to an AfD for widening my education into previously unexplored areas, when the people who do know the area won't do the work of finding references. Now the rest of you take another look.DGG 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as notability does not seem to me to be clearly asserted. We need to know why this is different from any of its peers, and the article doesn't address this. WMMartin 16:00, 16 January 2007 (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.