Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lah.cc

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 Proto||type 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect a lack of notability, but don't know enough about famous Singapore websites to be sure. Anyone? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Errr ... if you "suspect" but do not know, why did you nominate this article in the first place? Keep. RGTraynor 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Errr ... maybe because it has no content, except for a spamlink, and doesn't meet WP:WEB?? Delete. Slowmover 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's grounds for Keep/Rewrite, not to strike something down on no more grounds than failure to recognize it. That being said, I pulled up the site in question, and it's still explicitly in beta, so that would seem to put paid to its notability. My vote changes to Delete. RGTraynor 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google's services have been in beta for quite a while now... The lah.cc forums make it clear that it is a very popular site. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 22:59

• Keep. Appears to be very popular. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 13:25
• Keep. verifiable. For great justice. 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to meet WP:WEB, still in beta. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB does not appear to meet the criteria of being deletion policy. BTW - your sig is really really difficult to edit around. For great justice. 02:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Swat. --Khoikhoi 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because it is verifiable does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not here to advertise sites that have barely developed, there are what, 2 whole topics on the entire site? The site is still in Beta and they admit that, how could it pass notability? Radagast83 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability neither asserted nor self-evident. Sandstein 20:26, 11 April 2006 (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.