Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InteLib (software library)

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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InteLib (software library)

Non-notable programming library. Article probably created by the inventor, and all references are to his own works. Prod contested by author. BradV 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A quick search of Google Scholar and the ArXiv turn up no evidence of this library being used as the basis for further work. Googling on "Intelib" itself fails to turn up reliable source reviews, although it does seem to be a reasonably widely distributed library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayAYang (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sean Whitton / 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this already. It seriously lacks secondary sourcing independent of the subjects origin and fails general notability(all five bullet points). Do we really need to see this relisted a fifth time? Synergy 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Synergy. There is no assertation of notability, nor are there any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:19, 25 July 2008 (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.