Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADsafe
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ADsafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this http://pro.01net.com/editorial/402130/microsoft-invite-la-communaute-open-source-a-jouer-dans-son-bac-a-sable/ which is just a mention. Polarpanda (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the web ADsafe is usually mentioned at the same time as Caja, and there are lots of comparisons of ADsafe to Caja. So I think ADsafe is well-known and significant, and has been influential, even if there are few tech articles covering it, on its own, in depth. The criterion should *not* be "Does a Google search for 'ADsafe' return lots of relevant hits?" as the links above suggest. Google is not the sole arbiter of importance and it happens there is something else called AdSafe which has wider coverage. If you search for "adsafe caja" you will find there are many results. -PGibbons (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom Shadowjams (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources in the article show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not appear to have enough reliable, third-party sources to confer notability. The sources in the article are very unimpressive (Yahoo! Groups, Google groups, a link to the project's website, etc.) and I haven't really seen any other significant coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:13, 9 December 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.