Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Python Robotics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Python_Robotics

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Python Robotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep JUSTNOTNOTABLE is a poor justification for a nomination. It's a real project, has been in existence for some years. It couples a mainstream language to a teaching field that's increasingly important in schools. Most of all, it's NSF funded, so there's one big fat irrefutable source for starters. There could be an argument for deletion on the basis of a tiny article describing a project that seems to have stalled in recent years. However "just not notable" has to mean that it's failing our basic condition of reliable 3rd party mention, and that's clearly achieved. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Did the nominator even do a GScholar search? If so, why weren't the dozens of articles mentioned? Did the nominator find them all unreliable? I just don't understand this sort of nomination. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not only are their dozens of articles there are also well cited articles the first having 46 cites[1].--Salix (talk): 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, has anyone actually read any of these sources? I note that no one has added any to the article.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.