- 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 Delete.--Húsönd 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Article makes some vague claims of notability but these are hard to sustantiate. Google presence appears minimal. More detailed research may show notability, this is a procedural nomination. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. The only sites that talk about it are download sites or their sites. yandman 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - weak assertion of notability, however i feel it is a faulty assertion claiming it was most famous for a 2d copy of another game. Does not sound that notable to me. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. None of their games are notable. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. scope_creep 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Deletion per A7 WP:CORP and WP:BIO Missvain 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per all of the above. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems fine to me. ORT Software was a very important part of the early PC shareware scene. The recent changes to the article seem to address most of the comments above. [DomincParche] 11:21, 18 November 2006 — 59.167.82.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.