The result was Delete due to copyright violation from this document. The document was posted in January of 09, the article didn't come until months later and was copied directly from that document. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Sourcing appears tangential and this has a very unencyclopedic tone. Doesn't look like it has sufficient enduring notability to justify an article. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Because when I forget certain aspects of wbs.net's closure, this is the only detailed resource I have to fall back on. 99.9.166.76 ( talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) cliff reply
Weak keep The only problem I currently see is the unencyclopedic tone, which can be fixed. Other than that, I see no reason to delete. Until It Sleeps Wake me