Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEPOT


 * 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   delete. Big Dom  08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

DEPOT

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no evidence that the article's subject, which appears to be (the article lacks context) an open-source distributed hash table implementation, is notable. WP:N requires the subject to have non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable secondary sources. The article presently has an external link to the subject's official site. As a primary source, this link does not evidence notability. There does not appear to be any coverage of the subject in sources that can indicate notability. Searching for "Distributed Ensemble of Pages that is Outage tolerant" on Google Web returns 42 "unique" results, all of which appear to be mirrors of this article. Including omitted results, the number of results increases to 110, but the nature of the results is the same as before. Searching Google News, Books, and Scholar returns no results with the exception of an book that is an index to IEEE publications that cannot be previewed. Searching Google Web for +DEPOT "distributed hash table" returned a huge number of irrelevant results (262 deemed unique), so +Bombay was added to the query, as the subject is an IIT Bombay project. 32 results were returned, all of which are irrelevant. Without +Bombay, Google News and Books did not return any results, while Google Scholar returned eight irrelevant ones. Rilak (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as much as "per nom" is discouraged, the nomination is so thorough I have nothing more to add. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (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.