Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infobitt

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 Larry Sanger. JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobitt

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

No evidence of sufficient notability to ever be able to stand on its own as a coherent article. A stub likely to remain a stub for years to come. Obviously, it might take off, but possible future notability doesn't justify an article now, per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Merge into Larry Sanger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only just mentioned a few days ago over on RationalWiki that there "seems to be very little information about infobitt on the net" and "Google search results show only a few articles from late last year". The site is already almost five months old and it's going nowhere. I don't see a future for this site, and therefore I don't see a future for this article. 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Only reference is an article about what the site could become. Merge into Sanger's article. Glen 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Sanger - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Sanger. It's already covered there and there isn't enough for a standalone article. Shouldn't be at AfD as this is the wrong place to propose a merge. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2015 (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.