Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Archive
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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Common_Archive
"Nonsensical, hypothetical proposal" 128.112.24.137 05:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. EvilPhoenix talk 09:20, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone can tell us what a common archive actually is instead of just mentioning prerequisites. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Wouldn't it just be an archive that is common to something, such as the Wikimedia Commons? 13,600 Google hits. [1] suggests notability, so I'm adding {{context}} and will abstain from voting until I know more. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)- Now that the context is known, I'm voting delete. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Expand, I am one of the authors. Please do not be to quick to dismiss this entry. The Common Archive is a framework that is being developed within the Wikipedia environment in order to demonstrate how temporal location can be used as version control. The term Common Archive is used as an expansion of Creative Commons but it is not the same. It combines temporal information with geospatial co-ordinates to locate any kind of digital material within a datascape. As for being 'hypothetical nonsense', this seems to indicate an unwillingness to conseder new ideas. Perhaps this user should read the Wikipedia manifesto. User: Simon Pockley 11:43, 9 August 2005
- Expand, I'd also be grateful if you did not delete this article, 'the' or 'a' common archive is an important concept utilising ubiquitous computing, unlimited storage, geospatial awareness and the collaborative nature of wikis. It's definitely not nonsensical and only hypothetical if you consider the concept to be not fully formed... which adding this page to the 'delete' pile and stopping us from expanding on it (we were going to over the next week or so) doesn't allow us to do. Stay of execution please. User: James Farmer 10:56, 5 August 2005
-
- Remember, Wikipedia is not original research. If you are "developing a concept" as you say, there are other places to do it. The way to do it is not to create an encyclopedia article. Sdedeo 06:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- The concept is already fully developed and in place, we're not developing it here... we're writing about it. We could, of course, go and write it up and then post it here in it's entirity... but is that the way Wikipedia works? I have to stress again that this isn't hypothetical and as for nonsensical, well, that's very much a matter for persoanl considersation. I suggest that if you really want to proceed with deletion you are quite clear about eactly why this need to happen and that that requires discussion. The reasons above are not adequate. --James Farmer 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least, you should have a few references to mainstream mentions of the term "common archive": newspapers, academic journals, etc. You say it is related to the "creative commons" license, but a google for common archive and CC together pulls up nothing remotely like you've described. Again, this is not the place to post new ideas that you've had. Sdedeo 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- The concept is already fully developed and in place, we're not developing it here... we're writing about it. We could, of course, go and write it up and then post it here in it's entirity... but is that the way Wikipedia works? I have to stress again that this isn't hypothetical and as for nonsensical, well, that's very much a matter for persoanl considersation. I suggest that if you really want to proceed with deletion you are quite clear about eactly why this need to happen and that that requires discussion. The reasons above are not adequate. --James Farmer 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Remember, Wikipedia is not original research. If you are "developing a concept" as you say, there are other places to do it. The way to do it is not to create an encyclopedia article. Sdedeo 06:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete baring any expansion on what this really is and why it is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:22, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
