Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynx (protocol) (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx (protocol)

No-consensus AFD in 2007, still no assertion of notability, and no material improvement in article since then. Unreferenced orphan article. THF (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted. Pyrrhus16 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite It's no less notable than the TCP/IP protocol, though it definitely needs expanding and copyediting for tone and style. KaySL (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not about a protocol in the same sense as TCP/IP: this is an old, BBS era file transfer protocol. As such, it isn't an advertisement, or that much of a going concern any more: it's chiefly of historical interest. What counts as a reliable source for matters such as this ought to have some flexibility where the preserved mementos of BBS history are involved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Flexivbility in RSs or not, this article has zero. A forgotten unimportant piece of software should not be kept for nostalgia's sake. The page is orphaned, and absolutely no-one will fix it, so is best to delete. Let a new article be made when and if anyone cares that this is gone and can find any sources.Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of an encyclopedia is precisely to ensure historical information does not get forgotten. Granted, this software was hardly as notable as, say, FTP or HTTP, but in my opinion, it's notable enough to have at least a stub-class article. Cheers. KaySL (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KaySL.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The documentation is sufficiently RS for the description; but, as i rememebr this software, I'm surprised not to find some sort of 3rd party source to supplement it. DGG (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2009 (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.