Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chomskybot (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chomskybot

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

Non-notable program. Completely fails even the general notability guidelines. To quote the last discussion: "has anyone ever written anything about it that's not in a blog or forum?" The prevailing arguments for keeping in the last discussion was the number of Google hits and that it was a "reasonably-well known" script that's been around for a fairly long time, neither of which satisfy the notability requirements. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a few reliable sources can be found, then make this page a redirect and add a line or two in the main Noam Chomsky page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searches on Google Books turn up dozens of hits from published books, some of which (e.g., a writeup in New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages) are substantial coverage rather than passing mentions. The article should be expanded using these third-party sources, not deleted on the mistaken and apparently untested assumption that they don't exist. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through the seven pages of Google books results and found Wikipedia scrapers (fake books whose contents are Wikipedia articles), trivial mentions (e.g. mentioning it briefly in the lineage of other software [1]; a footnote that mentions Chomskybot as an example of something that could be coded in Perl [2]), circular references (descriptions of Chomskybot that refer back to Wikipedia for more details e.g. [3]), and many books that do not mention Chomskybot because Google apparently no longer makes it possible to filter out the results that it thinks are related but that do not include the actual search phrase. With the possible exception of the Yellow Pages book mentioned by Psychonaut, what I did not find is anything in-depth that could be used as an argument for notability based on WP:GNG. Google scholar also came up empty. As for Google web search itself, I think the most recent xkcd is apposite. So unless new and better specific references turn up, I am not convinced by the "just do a search" argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per David Eppstein. 8 years since last review (under much easier AfD standards in 2006) should have been enough time for non-passing citations in journals or mainstream press. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein's astute analysis. --Randykitty (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also agree with David Eppstein's analysis. The two or three brief mentions in RS books don't rise to the level of wp:notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. David's analysis covers it. This cruft is not encyclopedic and doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2014 (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.