Browse Happy : The only two reliable, independent citations are from right when the website was created, and they reek of churnalism .  Might be worth a mention on Web Standards Project but doesn't seem to deserve its own page.  Apocheir ( talk ) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions .  Apocheir ( talk ) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Was an important part of getting people to move off of Internet Explorer 6 and similarly old browsers.  Its Javascript code is still embedded in thousands of websites even today.  I concede that when browsers moved to auto-updating every four weeks sites like this weren't as prominently covered anymore, but it was historically improtant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and even YouTube had a similar system which was covered in major sources too.  77.103.193.166 ( talk ) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have any sources supporting these claims?  Apocheir ( talk ) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are two sources that are independent of the subject and provide extensive coverage.  2004-era CNET is reputable, and the German source is written by what I understand to be a career journalist (according to Google Translate, I can't read German).  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Can we get a source analysis?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find WordPress sites and blogs, nothing about this website.  It still comes up in Gsearch, but that isn't notable.  Even what's used now for sourcing isn't very good.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is the only book coverage I find [27] , but it just uses the website as an example of how to program so that things look a certain way online.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – there isn't great sourcing in the article itself at the moment, and online there are various blogs and forums discussing it for example.  CNET is also not a really reliable source.  TLA tlak 16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Web Standards Project (which could use the fleshing out).  This is a tiny bit of web history and I'm not sure it should be deleted; I'd prefer this NOT be deleted.  BusterD ( talk ) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability guidelines; merge/redirect if a reliable source confirms that it is owned by the Web Standards Project.  No reliable sources found.  Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 22:11, 18 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge