Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xupl

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xupl[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This product no longer exists nice (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coment see WP:Notability does not degrade over time. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't stand up to any notability standard. It has multiple issues that can no longer even be improved because the product doesn't exist and the links are all broken. There are no reliable sources that reference it and even archive.org has no reference to it. nice (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is/was this ever widely used? I can't find much about it. Joyous! | Talk 02:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The project was abandoned before it ever became stable. It's been sitting idle and unfinished for years. nice (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the reason given by the nominator was not valid, this subject appears to be non-notable. At most, this article could be condensed to a sub-section in XML but I doubt even that is necessary. Chagropango (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any sources that would meet WP:GNG. ProofRobust 12:12, 19 November 2022 (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.