Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infobot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobot (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)
Delete. Non-notable software script which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<infobot> huh? 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article would appear to already contain valid book references, and seems to have some claim to actual historical significance as Internet incunabula. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article contains multiple independent and reliable sources which clearly reach notability. LotLE×talk
- That is categorically false. The article has two citations and this article does not "clearly reach notability" by a mile. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, several references seems notable Jeepday (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I only see two references cited in this article, both of which refer to a fork of Infobot ("blootbot") and neither of which really meet the definition of non-trivial. Oh, and the second reference is just a sourceforge link, so its not really a third party reference at all. [1] I have to ask, what are you talking about? JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References do not have to be inline per WP:CITE#General reference. You forgot to mention the two books given in the article. The inline refs are only for the blootbot fork. The rest of the article is supported by:
- Really? I only see two references cited in this article, both of which refer to a fork of Infobot ("blootbot") and neither of which really meet the definition of non-trivial. Oh, and the second reference is just a sourceforge link, so its not really a third party reference at all. [1] I have to ask, what are you talking about? JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| “ | General references
|
” |
- Keep, part of IRC culture that lives on to this day. purl is on practically every channel on irc.perl.org with more than three people and has been an institution for years (though she's now a flooterbuck, it's nice to document her history). 76.98.130.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 29 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.