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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. This has been relisted more than enough times, consensus seems to be that the current article is too promotional but enough people are demonstrating that it could be improved with available secondary sources. - filelakeshoe 09:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ClueNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Subject is not notable. Tow talk 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is poorly written in parts but that can be improved. Furthermore, I'm sure that ClueBot and ClueNet have been the subject of many articles, therefore making it notable. --5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, all the references provided in the article are either primary or unreliable. Also, I think that ClueBot might have been subject of many articles but not ClueNet. ClueBot might be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but not ClueNet. Due to this I think the article should be deleted. --Tow talk 00:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead reads like an advertisement and makes me want to vote delete just for that. But let's look at the sources this article is based on. I just scanned them and these are the ones not affiliated with ClueNet: http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/, http://evilhosting.org/, http://www.nuxified.org/poll/which_games_should_be_selected_for_the_upcoming_tournament, http://www.nuxified.org/article/nuxified_and_cluenet_prepare_a_gaming_tourney_you_are_invited , so what is that, two that do not mention it at all, and two that are on some kind of tech blog and which only mention it in passing. This does not seem to pass notability, appears to be of a promotional nature, and should therefore be deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tow talk 06:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per The Sound and the Fury. I'm not seeing this pass WP:CORP, or even coming close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per what I said above. Searched FS Daily and Linux Today and found papers on ClueNet. Sure it's badly written but that's not a matter for AFD.--5 albert square (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why exactly you decided to vote twice? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's been relisted, therefore previous vote doesn't count as far as I'm aware. It starts from scratch.--5 albert square (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To avoid confusion, I'm de-bolding the !vote, because we do not vote a second time after a relist; a relist is just a continuation of the same discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind linking to any such articles? I am fairly sure that if these articles exist they are probably about ClueBot and not ClueNet. Also, do the votes casted before relisting really don't count?  TOW  talk  03:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • this one and this are just a couple. I did find more by Googling ClueNet.--5 albert square (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs re-writing in part, but some of the tags such as 'Very few or no other articles' are due to the work ClueNet does around users (if you check outside of the main namespace you'll find lots). ClueNet projects have featured in multiple papers and a few have linked articles (as noted above). If a community that creates and maintains projects to help wikipedia (and have made over 3 million edits to that effect - 3,376,628 at the time of checking for related projects in Wikipedia:List_of_bots_by_number_of_edits) is not 'Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.' then personally I don't see any point in going to the effort of trying to improve wikipedia in part or whole. If the projects don't have an impact then why do users notice when they're having issues and contact ClueNet volunteers/admins. While I may not be an experienced editor that has a fetish for reading policies, I think it's the principle that counts. My $0.02. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your user page you seem to be involved with ClueNet in some way. Don't you think your participation in this vote is a conflict of interest?  TOW  talk  17:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't Cobi's from the second nomination also COI... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think so. I think the only reason this article has survived 2 AfD nominations before is because the ClueNet community is so active on Wikipedia.  TOW  talk  17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that 5 albert square has been messaging people people involved in the ClueNet community asking for participation. I wonder if this would be considered canvassing.  TOW  talk  17:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urm, no, they have not been asking for participation but simply made us aware of this AfD, I suggest you check my talk page again and tell me how it is canvassing... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, not canvassing, I wasn't asking them to vote, I was simply making them aware of the AFD, much the same as you did to Cobi. If you look at Cobi's contributions you will see that he's not been active on Wikipedia for about the last month. If he's not been active then he may well not have got the message about the AFD, I had also thought that by messaging Damian and MTCD then one of them may have been able to get a message back to Cobi about the AFD funnily enough even using ClueNet. Also, is it just me or is it strange that someone who posted a delete vote here also posted on ClueBot's talk page to complain about the bot's operator not manually reporting false positives himself?--5 albert square (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per The Sound and the Fury's and Tow's comments. Cheers,
  Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TOW  talk  18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Personally, I think ClueNet probably warrants an article on WP, but I'm just not seeing the significant coverage in independent reliable verifiable sources necessary to establish notability.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Rewrite. modify, but keep! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, this article needs cleanup, but it should be kept, as it is notable enough. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2012 (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.