abstract
| - I am opening this discussion in response to a request for technical help from Elbowin (talkcontribs). Rationale copied from his/her talk page is as follows: "It is about a piece of software which never went beyond beta stage and is irrelevant as such. The old discussion claims some kind of "historic" relevance, but this cannot not be taken from the article as it stands. I found this article browsing through the and was very dissappointed of it. Version history shows that the article is probably an orphan and no one cares about it. On the other hand, I found in the article Medireview very good reading: That's how to deal with history of computing." I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep – The topic is passing WP:GNG, per:
* Fay, Joe(November 17, 2006).Google draws in iRows. The Register.Retrieved on June 04, 2012.
* O'Reilly, Dennis (August 23, 2006). Web Spreadsheets Nearly Ready for Prime Time, PC World Magazine.
* Michael Arrington(2006-11-15)."Google Absorbing iRows". TechCrunch. . Retrieved 2007-04-03. —Northamerica1000(talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Big software firms acquire smaller ones, programmers change their employers. This event creates a ripple in the press. What makes this case notable? How is it reflected in the article? Elbowin (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
|