| Revision as of 14:48, 25 July 2008 editSynergy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,794 edits →InteLib (software library): delete this already← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:19, 25 July 2008 edit undoTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,863 edits →InteLib (software library): DNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''Delete''' this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails ](all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? ''']'''] 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails ](all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? ''']'''] 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Synergy. There is no assertation of notability, nor are there any reliable sources. ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]• ] • ])</sup> 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:19, 25 July 2008
InteLib (software library)
- InteLib (software library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable programming library. Article probably created by the inventor, and all references are to his own works. Prod contested by author. BradV 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete A quick search of Google Scholar and the ArXiv turn up no evidence of this library being used as the basis for further work. Googling on "Intelib" itself fails to turn up reliable source reviews, although it does seem to be a reasonably widely distributed library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayAYang (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!Leave me a note or two 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per lack of notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails general notability(all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? Synergy 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Synergy. There is no assertation of notability, nor are there any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)