Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NotScripts

NotScripts

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

I'm a bit unclear on notability for this one. This browser extension is no longer supported by the creator, and is in fact no longer available for download in Google's web store. I've since removed the stale links, but the only thing that would lend any notability in this case is the article on Lifehacker that yet remains - and if I remember WP:N correctly, we need more than one article to convey that notability. On the other hand, notability is not temporary. But on the gripping hand, there are plenty of cases that state that notability is not permanent, either.

I'm bringing this to AFD, rather than PROD, because I feel discussion should probably be out on the forefront if there is to be discussion on this topic - and a speedy is definitely right out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (creator) Improved - there's three WP:RS satisfying WP:GNG, and further sources in books [1], [2], and a claim of notability as the first NoScript like extension on Chrome. Widefox; talk 14:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - although expanding more than a stub may be difficult. Widefox; talk 22:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to add to this, the brief mention and/or bibliographical entries in the books you mention wouldn't qualify, actually. As to the other articles you provide, that's the part I'm unclear on - if prior mention of these, with little else to go on, could constitute notability under GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[3] (so the scriptblock text should probably be reinserted as a fork), Kern, M. Kathleen, and Eric Phetteplace. "Hardening the browser." Reference & User Services Quarterly 51.3 (2012): 210-214., [4]. Passing mentions but noteworthy [5], etc.

Not sure what you mean by prior mention. We have more than 2 RS to satisfy GNG. Widefox; talk 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The few brief mentions in reliable sources do not justify an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 RS are about the topic, rather than brief mentions, which satisfies GNG.

As it appears difficult to expand beyond that, happy to Merge into say NoScript. Widefox; talk 22:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – for historical reasons. I agree that notability is not always permanent, but usually I think that would be the case where the subject was viewed as having the potential to become notable, but in retrospect never did. This extension was notable for a time as the first to provide an important function for an important browser. The article could be updated with information on ScriptBlock and renamed ScriptBlock, since that is the current version. One reservation is that all of the in-depth information is from one writer -- Martin Brinkmann at Ghacks. But Ghacks has an article in WP, so I guess that counts as a RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]