Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humans.txt


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Humans.txt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a (de jure or de facto) standard by any means, but rather a non-notable inside joke. ï¿½ (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This initiative (and especially Google's use of a "humans.txt" file) does seem to have gotten some attention in the blogosphere.  But so far I am not having much success finding any coverage in reliable sources, which is what we need here at Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. There have been mentions of this in a few web development books. Most have been put out by Packt Publishing (examples: ), although there's also an example in this SitePoint book.  However, there's very little of significance in these sources, merely a definition and an example at best.  Google's use of a humans.txt file has generated a lot of attention, but I struggle to see any of it in a reliable source. I don't think it would take much for me to reconsider deletion here, but I'm just not seeing the standard being met from what I was able to find. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stupid I.T. in-joke.  I think Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applies here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable 'standard file' like robots.txt. It looks like this might have been some sort of web design fad. I did not find any reliable sources via Google Scholar or ACM. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:23, 26 October 2013 (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.