Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Frog (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mapletip have requested this article to be deleted with the following reason: Dead software, website, and company. This is a re-nomination, please check the previous entry in here. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nothing in WP:CORP requires the business to be active, e.g. British_East_India_Company was disolved in the 1800s. This company has the required noteablity to have an article. Wrs1864 18:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. By that logic Enron should be deleted. --67.71.78.37 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and keep. The concept was interesting and may yet be carried forward by others in a different form. Previous nomination for deletion failed on good grounds which remain valid. No good reason to delete. - Kittybrewster 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Per Wrs1864. Chris Kreider 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable anti-spam tactic --Aim Here 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Delete reasoning is invalid per Wrs1864's comment. Tit-for-tat antispam technique is notable per Kittybrewster's and Aim Here's comments. The effective implementation of this technique and its fallout are an important event in spam history. —Raymond Keller 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wrs1864 - we have plenty of articles for things that no longer exist; it's called "history". Zetawoof(ζ) 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Shakespeare's dead too, big deal. Anyway, notable company and product, lots of press during its lifetime and demise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I came here looking for information on Blue Frog and I found it. What's the problem? - JNighthawk 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Clearly has a place as notable product TheRanger 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just today, wired published another article on blue frog and the DDoS attack. Wrs1864 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I just came here to read up on BlueFrog because of that Wired article. Even without the renewed attention it would be worth keeping because of its historical significance. Joe in Australia 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per Wrs and Joe. Rmfitzgerald50 02:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This is probably a spammer trying to remove any info on alternatives. neilmusgrove 09:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quite a lot has changed since the last time this article was deleted. wtfunkymonkey 09:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Notable and effective approach to curtailing spam. Alex Pankratov 23:45, 1 November 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.