Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roach Motel (computing)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roach Motel (computing)

This seems to be a non notable neologism Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find much use of it these senses. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was broken off from Roach Motel to make the subject more coherent. Jon513 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jon513. The original article Roach Motel was written very incoherently when I came across it today. It was a single page describing three meanings of the term "Roach Motel," each with one or more pararaphs devoted to one of these meanings. They were also written quite incoherently. This is not a normal convention for writing Wikipedia articles. In response, I made a separate page for each of the two meanings with longer definitions. Since these articles were short, I marked them as stubs, in hopes of future expansion. I made the page Roach Motel into a disamiguation page, defining the third term at the top (this is common on Wikipedia). I am presently researching these topics myself, but I do not know what useful information I can contribute to these.Shaliya waya (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a long history to this term dating back to the earliest version of Oracle Database. It's been applied to Portable Document Format and numerous other proprietary formats, and most recently to Facebook by Robert Scoble, representing a serious criticism rather than just a one-time ha ha only serious joke. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but really needs sources. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources whatsoever. How can anyone know that it has a long history & is not a trivial joke?DGG (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When I split the original Roach Motel article, which I found by opening a random article, I did not change the information in the article. I only moved around the existing paragraphs to conform with Wikipedia's conventions, and this involved creating some new pages. I noticed there were no sources, and there was an {{unreferenced}} tag, but I am not an expert on this topic, and I don't know where to find them. I did a Google search, and of all the three meanings the original article has, the product seems to have the most notability. For now, I believe it would be best to place an {{unreferenced}} tag on this page, and if no further sources can be found, it be renominated.Shaliya waya (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and who knows what else. Probably a valid speedy delete as A7 and maybe A3. The other option is to combine under a pseudo dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands it doesn't even seem to be verifiable, let alone notable. RMHED (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others say, not at all verifiable. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 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.