Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate 2

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 speedy keep. No-one has expressed an opinion that the article should be deleted. Even the nominator xyrself wants a merger. Articles for deletion is not the place to discuss article merger. I suggest reading the new Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_subjects_that_fail_to_satisfy_the_notability_criteria. Uncle G 13:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable enough to deserve its own article, I suggest a merge with Linux kernel and redirect. I wasn't satisfied with the keep arguments from the last debate. Everyone demanded expansion of the article but no-one pointed out what it could be expanded with. (I promise not to nominate it again no matter this one's outcome..) Memmke 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and remove nomination: The other AFD finished just over 12 hours ago and was a definite keep. Far too soon to nominate for AFD again, a decision was made. Also note the OP's only posts so far are the previous AfD, this AfD and talks regarding the AfD. I think this is bad faith and someone wants to make a point. The OP points out that they "wasn't satisfied with the keep arguments from the last debate", well the closing admin was as was everyone else. Ben W Bell talk 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For one, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And, would it really hurt to debate the subject further? Memmke 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, an apparent single-purpose account renominating an article with the exact same rationale 12 hours after their previous AfD failed. Demiurge 10:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• You guys shouldn't be so quick to judge me, I've renominated it on different grounds. I didn't create this account to renominate it, I nominated it the first time too. I'm new to wikipedia and still "learning", so please don't bite me. Memmke 10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - the only place to discuss recently closed afds is WP:DRV. MER-C 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Must be go through this every week... do not renominate articles so shortly after the AfD closed. As stated above that is what deletion review is for. One thing is for sure... this way won't get you many supporters that's for sure. MartinDK 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - ignoring for a minute that it survived an AFD just a few hours ago, this is easily a very notable debate for Wikipedia to cover. It can be expanded with both views, that of the microkernel and the monolithic kernel, as well as an observation of currently existing kernels and thus the practical use of both design philosophies. The debate was revisited at a later date; we can cover that as well. I don't see how this cannot be expanded. Just give it eternity, and this article will eventually write itself, like every other article on Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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.