Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial Word Completion

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Word Completion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I can't find any sources discussing this technology, and there may be some conflict of interest issues here as well. JavaTenor 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dlt s nn-ntbl sftwr. (I had to do it...) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn software, reads very much like an Ad. Lankiveil 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per above. Someguy1221 07:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the technology used in mobile phones (texting) etc, if so then it's surely notable Guycalledryan 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to Predictive text, which might actually be a decent redirect target for this article (which appears to refer to a particular flavor of that technology as developed by a particular company). I'll give it some thought. JavaTenor 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. At best, this is worth a footnote in predictive text. Pascal.Tesson 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, non-notable, conflict of interest - take your pick. This is not the same as Predictive text so not even worth a partial merge there. - fchd 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no sources to establish notability and there is a strong COI issue. COI does not demand deletion but it explains the POV in the article. JodyB _talk 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatant spam and no sources. *Cremepuff222* 23:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-notable and spam. Acalamari 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. JJL 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:44, 23 May 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.