Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyGopherd


 * 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 redirect to Gopher (protocol). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

PyGopherd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail the notability, reliable sources and verifiability tests. Nothing suggests it introduced any breakthrough technology or in any way contribute to the development of the gopher protocol or gopherspace, all that we can see is that it is another run-of-the-mill gopher server. The only secondary source mentions it in passing, merely confirming its existence. Good faith search failed to find any other references. The article merely repeats the information already present in. The article was nominated for proposed deletion but the nomination was contested.

Thank you. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I support deleting the PyGopherd article. As mentioned it appears to lack notability, as well as the other mentioned issues. zcrayfish (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to . This article regularly gets up to 5 views a day, perhaps we should redirect it to the main Gopher article for user convenience. Anton.bersh (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to . Basic facts are verifiable and this is a plausible search term. Redirect is an obvious alternative to deletion, and per our policy WP:ATD, for verifiable material, such alternatives are preferred over deletion. -- 14:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT redirect sounds reasonable, I'm OK with it. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple redirects usually blank the content of the article page. If you meant "delete and then create a redirect", that is usually only done in cases where there is harmful material, such as copyright violations or BLP violations. Unless I am missing a such a problem, I don't think that is the case here, so a simple redirect should suffice. -- 22:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misunderstood the idea. Obviously, no blanking permanent hiding of the existing content is necessary. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2021 (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.