- 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod that asserts the non-notability of its subject, e.g. "small, independently-operated" and "about 50 to 100 users during peak hours." MER-C 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rl 07:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article updated to show notability. - Article author Shadow16 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a subject that should do well on Google if it was indeed notable or "well-known", as the article now claims – but it does not. Two or three outside links in some discussion board. I suggest the author provide references that might establish at least some notability besides their own assertion. Rl 10:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, despite the 'Z' security device the article mentions. If 'Z' is so well-known, perhaps someone should create the article for that and just mention Slacked there. ~ lav-chan @ 11:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Z security system may be notable enough for an article. JASpencer 16:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, verifiable. arj 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable; the terms Z Slacked IRC in conjuction get 387 google hits, so for anything internet-related this is way below the bar. >Radiant< 21:41, 23 September 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.