Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetCaptor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Consensus seems to hold that sufficient reliable-source coverage has been demonstrated - notability is not temporary. ~ mazca talk 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NetCaptor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
nn and dead. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "dead" doesn't mean non-notable. Google shows many, many hits on NetCaptor. ZooFari 06:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a lot of download sites does not show notability. You've edited the article to add reliable sources that prove notability? Unsourced information should be removed. Source or gtfo. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- If it receives many download pages, it is obviously notable (or was). Some gov sites mention it as well, but perhaps finding a reliable source is rather difficult. ZooFari 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a lot of download sites does not show notability. You've edited the article to add reliable sources that prove notability? Unsourced information should be removed. Source or gtfo. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep – surely a browser that was one of the pioneers of tabbed browsing would be notable? It was a major spinoff of Internet Explorer with a large following back in the day, and the fact that it's no longer developed is not relevant. We should not promote recentism on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Show WP:RS that demonstrate WP:N SchmuckyTheCat (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment lack of notability is usually a criterion for merging and not deletion. "dead" is not a valid criterion at all. Thinboy00 @171, i.e. 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- additional comment WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --Thinboy00 @177, i.e. 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thinboy00 @186, i.e. 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. What's the problem finding reliable sources for this? NYT, USA Today, Jerusalem Post, The Hindu, Chicago Sun Times, Pasadena Star News. There are lots more, but this should be enough for now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 23 June 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.