Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bip IRC Proxy (2nd nomination)

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. NW (Talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bip IRC Proxy

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

DELETE PER WP:BIP... just kidding. This was nominated roughly four months ago with a no consensus result. Some people asserted that a blog article was sufficient for sourcing. I contend that it is not and would like to bring this before the community once again to see if we can finally achieve consensus on this, one way or the other. JBsupreme (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my comment in the first AfD and the fact that the sources were blogs. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG - it's not really notable, and a blog post is not WP:RS, despite popularity. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:RS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the listed 3rd party sources, I can find a few others: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; etc. LotLE×talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and forums aren't reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:41, 28 January 2010 (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.