Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.lsm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Grue 3 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
[edit] .lsm
Dab page that points to a couple of file formats that use the .lsm extension. File name extensions are not encyclopedic. ----Isaac R 04:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment .html .pdf, .rtf and others are redirects to the corresponding file format articles. This one just happens to be ambiguous.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There are all kinds of pointless redirects. It's hard to get them deleted because people have a "what's the harm" attitude towards them. Doesn't justify them, or explicit extension articles. ----Isaac R 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, useful. Kappa 06:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Useful" is not necessarily "encylopedic". ----Isaac R 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Useful" in the sense of "useful for encyclopedia users trying to look things up". Kappa 17:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So anything that "encyclopedia users" (which is everybody) find useful should be included? That means everything. Which is not consistent with the "not a general-purpose database" rule. We include things that fit in with the encylopedia format, period. ----Isaac R 21:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Equating "encylopedia users" with "everybody" stretches my ability to assume good faith. See User:Dermax below for an explanation of its usefulness. Kappa 22:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Useful" in the sense of "useful for encyclopedia users trying to look things up". Kappa 17:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- "Useful" is not necessarily "encylopedic". ----Isaac R 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to LSM where they are already mentioned. NSR 14:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect per NSR. Radiant_>|< 14:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, useful. I dont get the point why this entry shouldnt be here. As a matter of fact, it just was a very useful hint to me since I was typing .ism in the search engine because I wanted to know what it stands for, and now I know. So what s the point of deleting it? Dermax 22:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- N.B. .ism is a different (and nonexistent) article, starting with an eye. The article under discussion starts with an ell. To my mind, this hurts Dermax's credibility even more than the fact that his account was only created today. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- LOL another case where it's difficult to assume good faith. Anyway the argument is sound. Kappa 23:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- N.B. .ism is a different (and nonexistent) article, starting with an eye. The article under discussion starts with an ell. To my mind, this hurts Dermax's credibility even more than the fact that his account was only created today. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep if the application/software related to the extension is notable, it deserves an entry.--Poli 02:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect per Radiant and NSR. --Scimitar 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Kappa here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)
- Keep Normally I think this would apply under a dicterm for deletion. However, if other file extensions are considered encyclopedic, then what precedent is there then for this file extension's removal? I think the argument is in favor of keeping pending a little more info and linkage to other wiki articles. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
