This page was proposed for deletion by Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs) on 8 February 2021. It was contested by ArnoldReinhold ( talk · contribs) on 2021-02-08 with the comment: Article has ample sources. Non-frivolous public concerns about Wikipedia integrity seem appropriate for coverage.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikipedia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Lsj ( talk · contribs) Lsjbot ( talk · contribs)

It's about a Wikipedia bot, so I can't see any real connection here. Itsused ( talk) 17:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

It was created by a swedish person to be used on the Swedish wikipedia, your claim that it is no longer active on that site is not sourced and by the context I think the project should remain. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Are there any criteria regarding this issue? I mean, it's just a computer program, I don't see why the project template should remain. I also re-added my claim, now sourced. Itsused ( talk) 17:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think there are super strict rules about what projects should be attached but I don't see the Sweden project being inappropriate since like I said, it was created by a swede originaly to be used on the Swedish wikipedia. It is good that you have a source but it would be great if we could fine a citation that was not from wikipedia. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hum, I looked at the source you had to wikipeida and there is nothing there indication that there have been an official stop, it just hasn't edited in a while. Adding that back would be original research. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

What about this version:

As of August 2017, Lsjbot is inactive on the Swedish Wikipedia. ^[1]

I guess I should have been more careful with my words. Itsused ( talk) 18:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

That one works, but we should still try to find a third party source, wikipedia shouldn't generaly be used as a citation. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

This reference is to be used in an article directly relating to Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem with it. I re-added the sentence and used both references, I hope it's OK. Itsused ( talk) 18:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply

In the light of the proposal to close the Cebuano Wikipedia and that impact that the bot has had in the encyclopedia, I suggest starting a new section that reflects this information. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lsjbot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823061512/http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001 to https://online.wsj.com/articles/for-this-author-10-000-wikipedia-articles-is-a-good-days-work-1405305001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Deletion of this article was contested with the instruction to "see talk". Well, I have seen it and see nothing that supports notability. What a waste of time that instruction was. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Phil Bridger -- After contesting deletion, I added a hat note to this talk page with my reasons as suggested by WP:PROD. Sorry you did not notice it. Per WP:Notability "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I believe the cited articles in the Wall Street Journal and Popular Science meet that requirement, at least well enough to object to speedy deletion. The article needs some updating, but the topic is of significant interest, in my opinion, an example of a project to generate reference material automatically. It is particularly important as an attempt, successful or not, to provide broad access to knowledge for two language groups that are too small to attract the kind of volunteer force that major languages enjoy in producing their Wikipedias.-- agr ( talk) 02:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

For what it is worth, here is the Google translation of the current lsjbot page and talk page in Swedish Wikipedia:

This robot (Lsjbot) was active in Swedish and in the Filipino languages Cebuano and Waray-waray. It has created the majority of wikipedia articles available in these languages.

The bot is currently not active on Swedish Wikipedia. This user has made over 17,000,000 edits to Wikipedia!

[Talk] Hi Lsj! Since you have announced that you are no longer active on Swedish-language Wikipedia and have not been for about 3 years and then have not used Lsjbot either, I have recalled the robot flag according to the guidelines for robot users. In all good faith, Rasmus 28 1 May 2020 at 19.42 (CEST)

-- agr ( talk) 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ ArnoldReinhold and Phil Bridger: It was also the subject of a VICE feature almost exactly one year ago. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

For anyone interested in researching the output of lsjbot, which has made the Cebuano language Wikipedia the second largest in the world, in terms of article count, it is located at https://ceb.wikipedia.org . The random article link is in the left margin labeled "Bisan unsang panid." Lsjbot articles are clearly marked, as far as I can tell. Google Translate can do Cebuano.-- agr ( talk) 20:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply