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 no consensus (keep) — some notability has been shown (though not as much as some of the others out of this batch); the AfD is split enough to warrant a no consensus. — Deckiller 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SiteFrame[edit]

SiteFrame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was not around to actually see the prod being inserted in my watchlist. Now I see it go on VFD. Well, I've added a few more secondary sources to backup the article. I believe that it should be kept. It is at least included as a script (albeit an old version) in Fantastico, which is a notable. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. One of the fundamental points about notability is that it is not inherited. Jackaranga 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources: [1] [2] JulesH 16:33, 4 August 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.