Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/98lite


 * 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. Catchpole 09:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

98lite
Software, no evidence of notability. --Peta 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this software is sortof notable as it proved that IE could be removed from Windows without breaking Windows (something that Microsoft claimed was impossible). This was of important in the antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the US and Europe. However, the article doesn't mention this (I think it should, in order to assert its notability). &mdash; QuantumEleven 09:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, agree with Quantum about (modest) historical importance. --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I remember this causing quite a bit of a stir when first released, with a higher-than-average amount of press attention. A quick googling produces plenty of articles and reviews.  Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does assert or anyway imply notability, although this may not be obvious to those who weren't interested in browsers at the time. The "browser wars", as they were melodramatically termed, were important as is suggested by the amounts of money involved. Incidentally, the page does not read like an advert to me. -- Hoary 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it does not prove what it's claimed to prove. In fact, the way Brooks had to do this proves what Microsoft said in the first place Gazpacho 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per QuantumEleven, Dhartung, Starblind. I thought the article adequately made the point that this was software which Microsoft claimed in court couldn't be done, but if that needs to be made more explicit, then I have no objection to someone rewriting it.- gadfium 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rewrite. Much of the article could actually be considered an article on Shane Brooks (e.g., "Shane Brooks believes that Windows 98 has many advantages to its predecessor..."). However, it seems sufficiently notable, 118,000 google hits and its effect in countering microsoft claims.  Still, it needs work and some outside sources would be nice. Cool3 00:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has historical importance in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Needs work, but AfD Is Not Cleanup&trade;. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 8 October 2006 (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.