- 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The result was Speedy Keep/nom withdrawn (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FOAF (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article describes a topic insignificant to the Web and computer science. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although this is not a widespread standard (it's an open source social software/semantic web machine interface) it meets WP:SOFTWARE with dozens of citations in Google Books and computer journals. Speculate this is a bad-faith nomination by a single-purpose account, whose first edits are AFD noms. --Dhartung | Talk 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further context in article history, article Talk page, and the 17 hours of 72.49.162.143 (talk · contribs) contributions to Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dhartung, I certainly did create an account to nominate this article. This does not make my nomination bad-faith. Perhaps in your search for evidence you noticed the author of the article created it because he merely wanted to remove the material from another article and had no idea what to do with it. The external links are filled with 404 errors. There's no legitimate citations because none exist. The projects related to this standard are barely existant. From a computer science perspective, this whole topic is obvious and insignificant. If you'd like to discuss substantive issues regarding the article, I'd be glad to here from you. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and don't know about the policies/guidelines I vote for keep. I agree with the citations argument of Dhartung because FOAF is frequently mentioned in web related papers, about as frequently as the Dublin Core. I agree that the content of the article needs cleanup but deletion is not necessary, in my humble opinion. --GrandiJoos (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's "significant coverage" of this standard in any source. They refer to it mostly when using it as an example schema. No one I've seen has really gone into a discussion of FOAF itself. GrandiJoos, do you know otherwise? LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. FOAF is pretty significant ("FOAF project", which refers specifically to the subject of this article, gets 2.1 million hits on Google), not sure why this would be nominated for deletion. It may not be taught in a computer science course, but that is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree with User:Dhartung that this is probably a bad faith nomination. --Oldak Quill 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Apart from what everyone else has said, FOAF is supported by LiveJournal, so it's hardly insignificant. Jonobennett (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Tim Berners-Lee in a recent essay redefined the Semantic web concept into something he calls the Giant Global Graph, where relationships transcend networks/documents. He gives the GGG equal weight as to the Internet and WWW (!), and states "I express my network in a FOAF file, and that is a start of the revolution." Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I changed my mind (the one who proposed deletion). I think the Berners-Lee article adds some notability. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's been slashdotted! (I think!) LiveJournal implements it! (I think!) Just a vague hunch, but if LJ folks implement a web technology it has some chance of having some relevance somewhere. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (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.