Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chomskybot

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 of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomskybot[edit]

Vanity IMHO. 130.126.220.138 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. I'd not be strongly opposed to a delete MLA 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Completely frivolous nomination; article is not vanity. This is a decent article about reasonably well-known, well-documented script that has been around for over a decade, and widely adapted to other purposes. This article has been here for nearly three years—would it be too much to ask for reasons for deletion a little more compelling than "Vanity IMHO"? · rodii · 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rodii. Also because the term gets >15,000 Google hits, and there's no evidence the article was a vanity. --Aaron 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I was pretty skeptical, but after visiting the FAQ linked from the article, it sounds like the program has a minor following. At first, this appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE, but it has been ported by someone other than the author. This chunk of code should probably be categorized as a "phrase generator", of which there are many examples that generate phrases in many fashions, such as creating Shakespeare insults. Perhaps a separate article called "phrase generator" could be made, and this page could be merged into it. Isopropyl 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Racks up the Google results but has anyone ever written anything about it that's not in a blog or forum? Cleanup the page a bit (the example runs long, certain links seem unencyclopedic). The article is certainly lots of things, but definitely not vanity IMHO. -- Krash (Talk) 01:42, 3 March 2006 (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.