- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Torrage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD by drive-by IP with no reason given and no improvement. Several day old service cannot possibly pass notability standards for inclusion yet. No non-trivial coverage. Wperdue (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nonnotable software piece. - Altenmann >t 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is in fact non-trivial coverage of this service by independent parties, if you look for it. TorrentFreak & Saving The Interwebz @Wperdue: Age of the subject does not automatically preclude it from being notable Toastysoul (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to be any significant coverage at all. What coverage there is (including the immediately above) appears to be reprints of press releases, hence not independent. Bongomatic 18:05, 17 August 2009 (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.