Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NFS@Home

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.

NFS@Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

I am unable to find anything that shows that this software is

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find third-party sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a BOINC project like
  Number Field Sieve project it supports is actually quite important. --bender235 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That does show some notability, but in the case of Wikipedia - it doesn't show any.
    talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What I mean is that just because something is notable to a niche group does not mean that it is notable by Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia's standards.
    talk) 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Merge probably into
  NFSNet link goes to NSFNet, something totally different (mis-spelled). That needs to be fixed, as well as the red links taken out from the template. Articles need to be written first before they can be navigated. Please do not take personally. This debate is not about if the project is "important" but if there are reliable independent sources in the article, and there are none. Many other self-sourced articles on projects also need to be cleaned up and merged or deleted too. I did a double-take but this seems nothing to do with either the Network File System (NFS) nor @Home which you might hit with a simple google search. W Nowicki (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge as per above; no substantial coverage in reliable sources is mentioned.  Sandstein  06:25, 28 August 2011 (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.