- 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. czar ⨹ 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
1DayLater
- 1DayLater ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating for DELETION as fails NOTABILITY. There does seem to have been some local notability as the references come from periodicals/newspapers local to the north-east of England and the software did make no. 86 on a list of free software in PC mag but there are no references to be found on Google Books or Scholar. The external software page does not exist anymore. The firm seems never to have been more than a 2-person firm. In fairness to the article, it's not that spammy compared with some of the other stuff out there, but I don't believe it merits a page. U2fanboi ( talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
DeleteKeep The firm seems to be defunct. The official website is dead, and the last Tweet was in 2012. There was a Tumblr blog but it only had 4 pages and the year was unclear. The cites are 4 years old. At that time it would have been notable, but not now. – Margin1522 ( talk) 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTTEMP then. Margin1522, your comment misunderstands policy. St★lwart 111 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stalwart111 You mean it would be OK if it were rewritten in the past tense? I would be OK with that. But as it stands it risks sending readers on a wild goose chase. I tried to find out how to sign up, but it seems to have fallen off the map. Of course my search may have been incomplete, but I couldn't even find any information about when it was closed down, if it has been. – Margin1522 ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- If the company existed (past tense) then it should be written about in that manner. Hitler died; he's no longer around but he's still notable. Enron collapsed, its no longer around but it's still notable. Just because the company stopped trading or their products stopped working, doesn't mean they are no longer notable. Once notable, always notable. There's been a rash of these non-policy nominations and they should be speedy-keep-closed and strongly discouraged. St★lwart 111 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the information I would happy to update the article myself. For example, I
did that recently with
JANJAN, a defunct online newspaper. But in that case it was possible to determine what happened to it. In this case, it looks like it simply stopped. No announcement on their Twitter or Tumblr, nothing. So anything we write about it now would be speculation. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So just like any other topic, we write about those things we can write about. You can say, "as of 2014, the 1DayLater website is no longer available" or something like that.
St★lwart
111 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I found the closing announcement on the Wayback Machine and updated the article. Changing my !vote to Keep. I guess it does no harm to keep it for historical purposes. I do feel that they could have had the courtesy to leave a live page on the web for a couple of years, or at least leave an announcement on their Facebook page. – Margin1522 ( talk) 02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So just like any other topic, we write about those things we can write about. You can say, "as of 2014, the 1DayLater website is no longer available" or something like that.
St★lwart
111 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the information I would happy to update the article myself. For example, I
did that recently with
JANJAN, a defunct online newspaper. But in that case it was possible to determine what happened to it. In this case, it looks like it simply stopped. No announcement on their Twitter or Tumblr, nothing. So anything we write about it now would be speculation. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article's not perfect but that can be fixed, Google also brings up alot of stuff so see no real reason to delete. – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. czar ⨹ 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
1DayLater
- 1DayLater ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating for DELETION as fails NOTABILITY. There does seem to have been some local notability as the references come from periodicals/newspapers local to the north-east of England and the software did make no. 86 on a list of free software in PC mag but there are no references to be found on Google Books or Scholar. The external software page does not exist anymore. The firm seems never to have been more than a 2-person firm. In fairness to the article, it's not that spammy compared with some of the other stuff out there, but I don't believe it merits a page. U2fanboi ( talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
DeleteKeep The firm seems to be defunct. The official website is dead, and the last Tweet was in 2012. There was a Tumblr blog but it only had 4 pages and the year was unclear. The cites are 4 years old. At that time it would have been notable, but not now. – Margin1522 ( talk) 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NOTTEMP then. Margin1522, your comment misunderstands policy. St★lwart 111 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stalwart111 You mean it would be OK if it were rewritten in the past tense? I would be OK with that. But as it stands it risks sending readers on a wild goose chase. I tried to find out how to sign up, but it seems to have fallen off the map. Of course my search may have been incomplete, but I couldn't even find any information about when it was closed down, if it has been. – Margin1522 ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- If the company existed (past tense) then it should be written about in that manner. Hitler died; he's no longer around but he's still notable. Enron collapsed, its no longer around but it's still notable. Just because the company stopped trading or their products stopped working, doesn't mean they are no longer notable. Once notable, always notable. There's been a rash of these non-policy nominations and they should be speedy-keep-closed and strongly discouraged. St★lwart 111 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the information I would happy to update the article myself. For example, I
did that recently with
JANJAN, a defunct online newspaper. But in that case it was possible to determine what happened to it. In this case, it looks like it simply stopped. No announcement on their Twitter or Tumblr, nothing. So anything we write about it now would be speculation. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So just like any other topic, we write about those things we can write about. You can say, "as of 2014, the 1DayLater website is no longer available" or something like that.
St★lwart
111 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I found the closing announcement on the Wayback Machine and updated the article. Changing my !vote to Keep. I guess it does no harm to keep it for historical purposes. I do feel that they could have had the courtesy to leave a live page on the web for a couple of years, or at least leave an announcement on their Facebook page. – Margin1522 ( talk) 02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- So just like any other topic, we write about those things we can write about. You can say, "as of 2014, the 1DayLater website is no longer available" or something like that.
St★lwart
111 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- If I had the information I would happy to update the article myself. For example, I
did that recently with
JANJAN, a defunct online newspaper. But in that case it was possible to determine what happened to it. In this case, it looks like it simply stopped. No announcement on their Twitter or Tumblr, nothing. So anything we write about it now would be speculation. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article's not perfect but that can be fixed, Google also brings up alot of stuff so see no real reason to delete. – Davey2010 • (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.