Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dash Express


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dash Express

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notibility? no good coverage as the software/project is now defunct. Alan -  talk  00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Defunct is meaningless as notability is not temporary. I feel that sourcing on the article itself is sufficient, but others may want to do a quick look through a periodicals database to confirm sourcing. riffic (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Holy cow? There are so many coverage in reliable source, and you call it non-notable? --Reference Desker (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - although a defunct software which abandoned its GPS devices, sufficient references exist for notability as part of the history of GPS and software for GPS devices. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close Nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:DEL, WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP.  Even a cursory WP:BEFORE finds the coverage the nominator claims does not exist. And being "defunct" does not make a notable topic suddenly non-notable, else we'd have to delete articles on such "defunct" devices as steam locomotives and covered wagons. Historical notability is quite fine with Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 1 May 2011 (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.