Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) at 13:33, 18 December 2007 (→Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group: Close as snowball keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 13:33, 18 December 2007 by Trialsanderrors (talk | contribs) (→Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group: Close as snowball keep)
- 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, no need to continue this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article was already speedily deleted, but I restored to seek community discussion. As of now, I have no opinion on the merits. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems notable on reading article, reliable sources. Mykej (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appropriate sources for the subject. How this could be thought an A7 escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep HTML 5 and the WHATWG have received quite a bit of attention in the software industry, as one might imagine. JavaTenor (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources appear to be good, and the topic has reasonable notability. Tim Ross·talk 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The WHATWG is one of the most important behind-the-scenes players in what the web is going to look like over the next ten years. Is the deleting admin insane? --Polonius (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, this should have never been deleted in the first place (unless there's something I'm missing). RFerreira (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2007 (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.