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 merge to IRC. Black Kite 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vhost (IRC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

this article makes no attempt to demonstrate notability, nor do i think the article topic ever could demonstrate notability through significant third party coverage in reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into hostmask. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ... somewhere. Not standalone-article material at this point, but still useful and encyclopedic material. Technical information like this is usually easily sourced. Amalthea 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into hostmask. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable unless good sources are found. If this technical information is easily sourced, please provide sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you're referring to me I'll say it here for a third time: Verifiability of the concept or the material in this article is, I believe, not the problem. See google books for several hits on the topic (I haven't tested the quality of the hits though). Notability of this rather trivial concept on the other hand is, which is why a merge should at least be considered. IRC already has a few words on the concept though, so maybe this is enough. Amalthea 12:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No. no one is doubting verifiability. this is about notability. the problem is that it's an non notable subject, and just like every non notable subject, it should be deleted. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is simply incorrect. Encyclopedic material is of course appropriate and desirable as part of notable articles. For some random example, we *encourage* editors to merge material of non-notable songs into the parent album articles, in WP:NSONGS. Nobody enforces deletion of material just because it fails the community's notability criteria for standalone articles. Amalthea 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry, but on wikipedia we delete articles that aren't notable. this is policy. you can add the material you believe should be merged to a parent article now if you wish, but i'm concerned with deleting a non notable article. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If material from a non-notable topic is nonetheless noteworthy and improves another article on a notable topic then we merge, not delete. And what actually is policy (and copyright law) is that if anyone were to directly merge material from the article under discussion then that would prevent the revisions of this article from being deleted.
  But this debate on principles is getting quite off-topic, I would suggest we continue this elsewhere, if you want. Amalthea 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as we customarily do. The idea that every concept or thing mentioned in a merged article must be notable is absurd, as long as it meets WP:V. WP:N is very explicitly not about content of articles, and it is hard to see how an encyclopedia could be written otherwise. It's like saying every word in a sentence must be a complete sentence by itself. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, virtual host is a general term, like virtual machine and virtual ip, and the merge proposal is to merge this into an article that is also proposed for deletion or merge into this article. If a merge is in order, perhaps to an article on IRC? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:30, 31 March 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.