Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopher+

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 merge to Gopher (protocol). ✗plicit 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher+

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could not find enough reliable sources on Gopher+, probably because it "was never widely adopted by Gopher servers" as lead suggests. Dreamyshade attempted to improve this article after I WP:PRODed it, but Dreamyshade only found two emails in a public mailing list which mention Gopher+. Neither email is-indepth (only couple sentences about Gopher+). Neither email is independent, because they are written by people connected with Gopher+ who are just chatting about Gopher like on a forum or IRC. Therefore I believe there is no single WP:RS which would count towards notability. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Dreamyshade: you might be interested in this discussion.

Merge as proposed into Gopher (protocol) or delete if nobody else thinks it is worth a merge. Clearly not notable enough for its own article. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Content seems relevant, but tweet-long. Should also have more inline citations for the features. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sources found include an Ars Technical article and a chapter in the 1995 book Internet Publishing Handbook. There isn't a lot of depth to the coverage, but there is basic verifiability of Gopher+'s existence, it's implementation in Gopher servers, and its role in Gopher history. Because Gopher+ is almost always discussed in the Gopher context, a selective merge to Gopher (protocol) makes good sense. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, I looked at this and tagged it for merge into Gopher (protocol) - it's valid information with adequate sourcing available for verifiability, but not enough for its own article. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2021 (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.