Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClueBot NG


 * 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 merge to Vandalism on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for mainspace: redirect to User:ClueBotNG and move Criticism to Wikipedia:Bots. groig (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator . groig (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Author Comment WP:GNG is the rule here I think, you may want to contact the editors on the article's talk page. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  23:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC) and if it was unclear Keep L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 08:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: I was able to find the following sources, though only a few are substantial:, , , , , , .  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Vandalism on Wikipedia into the fighting vandalism page. The sources are borderline, and this seems like something that could be better covered under the larger topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , are you saying that the BBC and the Verge are borderline, or the amount of sources is borderline? L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The coverage is borderline. Perhaps it would be better to say I was agreeing with 's analysis of the sourcing, but that I think instead of keeping as a separate article, where there is a weak argument for it by GNG, that there is a very strong argument for expanding or improving the coverage at the linked article, and redirecting the bot article to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd also support a merge.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  01:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd also support closing as Redirect and merge from history per below. I typically prefer that as a close, but do think there might be content worth merging here, which is why I had that as my bold !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect. It's definitely a plausible search term; Vandalism on Wikipedia seems fine as a target.  Simply being name-dropped in publicity pieces is not sufficient for notability; a link to User:ClueBot NG on Vandalism on Wikipedia is probably all the coverage necessary on that page if the references aren't useful there. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.