Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuickSilver (project)

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. W.marsh 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickSilver (project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A non-notable academic project. Despite the claim of a large number of papers about this topic, I don't see how this in development software passes WP:NOT#CBALL Salad Days 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as prodder, reason was "University project with no assertion of notability". MER-C 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Despite papers going back fairly far, QuickSilver appears relatively new--all reports of it are in conference proceedings and technical reports. My keep would be stronger if it was in a peer-reviewed publication. Due to the fact that there are papers on the topic & you can download it, I don't really see how WP:NOT#CBALL can apply. The article describes QuickSilver as it exists now. --Karnesky 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be the start of something significant and is notable. --Buridan 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Buridan The Fox Man of Fire 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator's own argument admits that "there are a large number of papers aboutthe project" and wishes us to delete it on his unsourced claim that "it never got off the ground". Now that comment is a pretense of OR, and being used in a negative maqnner at that. DGG 05:18, 9 December 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.