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. Rlevse 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smartslab[edit]

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

I declined this speedy ages ago in favor of a prod that got contested. Another editor left a comment on the talk page to the effect of being unable to verify any of the sources cited here. Without being able to verify the depth of coverage, it is impossible to establish notability. Without notability established, the article should be deleted. Chaser - T 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article itself claims a few sources in magazines, and while I cannot verify them at this moment, a search on Google turns up mentions on some architectural publications, such as [1]. Depth of coverage may be a little thin but the topic seems to be of importance largely to architectural fields and I can see how it'd easily slip under the radar of general public interest and techie news outlets, but there seems to be enough out there to establish WP:N for this. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep At the moment, I don't have the ressources to verify the cites. If they do check out, please consider this a vote for keeping the article. Based on a dozen or so search engine queries, it looks like the subject is sufficiently notable. The article is denifitely in need of cleanup though (particularly the ad aspect bothers me). Seed 2.0 14:44, 4 April 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.