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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web Bot[edit]

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

This is a scam created by two guys trying to bilk money from the gullible. It only achieved notice due to its supposed ties to the 2012 phenomenon; now that 2012 is over, it no longer needs to exist. Wikipedia is not a consumer advocate site, nor does it need to give free publicity to a scam Serendi ^pod ous 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of an encyclopedia page is to share knowledge, which does involve an element of promotion. However, just because the article is about a product does not necessarily mean that the page is an advert. That would depend on how the page is written. From what I can see, the page isn't promotional in that sense. It explains what it is without the use of peacock terms and provides reliable sources stating its significance. Funny ^Pika! 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article seems to meet WP:GNG, with this page from The Telegraph [1] and this from the Argentinian El Dia [2]. Also, the bot wasn't solely used for the 2012 phenomenon so I'm not sure why a merge was proposed. I think it's probably more suited to web crawler, if a merge is required. Funny ^Pika! 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bot is covered in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. There seem to be conflicting concerns that it's either an advertisement or exists primarily as a consumer warning rather than an encyclopedic article, but bias can be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources used are pre-2012. The question is, does this thing still have notability post-2012? Serendi ^pod ous 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already pointed out, sufficient WP:RS exist to meet WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so a lack of "post-2012" sources does not affect the topic's inherent notability. (I did find one news story published this month which mentions the web bot project in a non-2012 context: [3]). I also agree with Colapeninsula's comment that WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems such as a failure to maintain WP:NPOV can be fixed through ordinary editing. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep-the article seems covered with reliable sources.--Soroboro (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (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.