Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleap


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eleap
Non-notable training program. Was PRODded, but tag removed after article edited to remove advertising. Notability not established or asserted. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me, beta services should be given the opportunity to rise or fall. Kinda "eating their young" mentality going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.84.42.234 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Didn't realise it was also only in beta. Another reason to delete it. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal Is that why Gmail is in Wiki. It even has a nice Beta sign on its logo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs).
 * Comment How many web2.0 concepts non beta have you seen? Let's remove them all. Flikr maybe? mke 81.181.126.68 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless it can be proved through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources that this web-based training program meets the criteria displayed at the Notability (websites) guideline. The current-proposed criteria at the Notability (software) guideline proposal may also apply. If deleted, this AfD discussion should not prevent thr re-creation of this article at a later date, provided that the above criteria can be demonstratably met. -- Saberwyn 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * eLeaP reviewed, I will encourage readers to follow Saul Weiner's review of the eLeaP platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs).
 * Do not delete, I have been looking for a way to streamline my orientation practices in healthcare and this tool is something I'd like to test for usability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.245.175 (talk • contribs).
 * Is it normal to delete from wiki a complete and useful tool? mke 81.181.126.68 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If it cannot demonstratably meet the guidelines and criteria I have mentioned above, usually yes. "Useful" is a very subjective term, and should only be used when backed up by a reliable source, such as a review from a newspaper or computing magazine. -- Saberwyn 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note, a large number of unsigned votes or comments from unregistered authors may be seen as detrimental to the 'cause' of keeping an article on Wikipedia. You are free to make your point, but be careful --JeffUK


 * Saul Weiner's eLeaP review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs).

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable beta software. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, still reads like an ad and fails any objective notability test I can think of. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. RGTraynor 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant advertising for nn software. AKADriver 14:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Pete.Hurd 23:45, 22 April 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.