Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpaceTime
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. John254 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SpaceTime
Non-notable browser. Corvus cornixtalk 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for a few weeks and see if notabilty can be found; it sounds interesting enough to have sources. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been here for nine months already. Corvus cornixtalk 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a emerging technologie. in my opinion we sould wait untill its atleast a year old to see if it has had significant impact. --SelfQ (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that an expressed reason why this fails notablity? Corvus cornixtalk 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it was covered in the San Jose Mercury News. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- (Comment) The reference in question is a deadlink. MercuryNews.com doesn't turn it up in an archive search, which could mean anything. However, a possibly relevant 202-word blurb does seem to exist within the archive behind a registration wall (sorry, can't be bothered). D. Brodale (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The deadlinked reference appears to be mirrored at redOrbit, fwiw. D. Brodale (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Comment) The reference in question is a deadlink. MercuryNews.com doesn't turn it up in an archive search, which could mean anything. However, a possibly relevant 202-word blurb does seem to exist within the archive behind a registration wall (sorry, can't be bothered). D. Brodale (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - references are not required to be on the web, this nomination appears to be wasting AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's David being snotty again. How does this article provide any claims of notability? Corvus cornixtalk 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
