Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAccelerator Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAccelerator

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. ✗plicit 00:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EAccelerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant coverage in non-primary sources. Most sources are just passing mentions. It's a way to accelerate PHP. Nothing worth noting beyond that. Many sources are how-to style and would not be appropriate for establishing a longer wiki article.
• Keep it is a notable topic of old class IT just like any theorem or experiment. Providing some sources including subject books mentioning it here, [1] [2][3][4][5], requires their addition only. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like to have notability (to some extent), but it should add further references to support it more. 110 and 135 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could use some more references -- like those mentioned above. jp×g🗯️ 04:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the refs cited above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:49, 9 May 2025 (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.