- 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. John254 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GitHub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:N, WP:WEBSITE, and WP:COMPANY.--SRX 14:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Please explain your reasoning. Pointing to various policies does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated.riffic (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are several notable projects being hosted on this revision control service, which is asserted in the article, and it is referenced in several third party resources. Furthermore, the only contributions of the nominator are AFD nominations. riffic (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now, I'm not sure if having notable projects hosted on the subject means the subject is notable, but I'm for keeping it because the Washington Post wrote about it and described it as "popular", and it has many other, albeit brief, mentions in many other secondary sites.-Samuel Tan 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Host of several large open source projects, several mentions on prominent sites. -Halo (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notable, curious about the nominator though... aren't you?--Buridan (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (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.