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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 08:13Z

Safari Books Online[edit]

Safari Books Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article doesn't assert notability enough for inclusion under either of the two possibly applicable guidelines (WP:WEB and WP:CORP). It started off as an advert along with articles for Rough Cuts and Short Cuts. It still seems like an advert to me. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not the best-written article, but I think Safari is notable as an arm of O'Reilly Media and as an unusual means of publishing. There's already a blurb about it on the page for O'Reilly, so it could be merged there, but I think there's probably plenty to be said that warrants moving that content to a separate page and expanding it. Pinball22 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely an important arm of O'Reilly. A merge would make sense if few secondary sources are found. --- RockMFR 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Jefferson Anderson 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note previous no-consensus related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rough Cuts. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 13 February 2007 (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.