Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrapy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Scrapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination for 149.68.7.120, rationale is as follows: Article does not meet notability guidelines. I have no opinion.  Hut 8.5  20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards delete - All my searches found nothing significant and notable aside from the following results here and here. Unless other sources are found, there's not much. SwisterTwister   talk  19:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't explain why we should ignore the results that you did find. Obviously, if you're going to put search results aside, you're not going to be successful in establishing notability. Andrew D. (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the results didn't seem significant enough. SwisterTwister   talk  16:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator states that he has no opinion and so clearly has not done due diligence on this while the opinion of a passing IP does not seem reliable when it only takes a moment to find a source for the topic such as Software Quality. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the nominator, 149.68.7.120 is. The reason the nomination process has to be completed by a registered user is purely technical. I would in fact have refused to complete the nomination if it was obviously flawed, but it isn't - the article does not contain any indication that the subject is notable.  Hut 8.5  20:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 17 June 2015 (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.