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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ReCAPTCHA[edit]

ReCAPTCHA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

on the grounds of not notable and WP:SPAM Sycarr 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into CAPTCHA? -- Senalishia 22:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep concept has appeared in scholarly literature, and in a recent article in The New York Times. Alansohn 03:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with CAPTCHA imo. -- Noam 84.108.243.66 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Novel use that helps with digitizing printed works MeekMark 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Describes a technology using CAPTCHAs to do OCR. Has potential for enough content to be distinct from the CAPTCHA article. Given that the technology got relatively wide news coverage (NY Times article, Wired article, Digg, Slashdot, Reddit) it's pretty clear that it's notable. 64.9.236.172 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article and let the relevant bits be taken out from CAPTCHA. If let stayed in CAPTCHA, it tastes like a certain kind of pork. --Kakurady 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article. It's an implementation of CAPTCHAs from the original inventors of CAPTCHA, and is therefore notable. As an editor above mentioned, it's been covered in many mainstream news sources, including the NY Times and the print version of Wired. As an academic project at Carnegie Mellon University, it is likely that there will eventually be peer-reviewed papers published about reCAPTCHA. Colin M. 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been covered in Wired, NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. It's also very useful for the Web!

These two comments were on the talk page, and should probably be counted as votes:

• Keep Why on earth would this article be deleted? It describes a real tool used by thousands (maybe millions) of people. The article should very much remain. --Thorwald 00:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neither can I see a reason for deleting this article. And before deleting it completely, I'd merge it into Captcha. Glaubigern 11:41, 6 July 2007 (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.