Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRows (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete after multiple relists ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

IRows
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I am opening this discussion in response to a request for technical help from. Rationale copied from his/her talk page is as follows: "It is about a piece of software which never went beyond beta stage and is irrelevant as such. The old discussion claims some kind of "historic" relevance, but this cannot not be taken from the article as it stands. I found this article browsing through the category:Ajax (programming) and was very dissappointed of it. Version history shows that the article is probably an orphan and no one cares about it. On the other hand, I found in category:JavaScript the article Medireview very good reading: That's how to deal with history of computing."

I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic is passing WP:GNG, per:
 * O'Reilly, Dennis (August 23, 2006). Web Spreadsheets Nearly Ready for Prime Time, PC World Magazine.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Big software firms acquire smaller ones, programmers change their employers. This event creates a ripple in the press. What makes this case notable? How is it reflected in the article? Elbowin (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 15 June 2012 (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.