Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonist

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 of the debate was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonist

Non Notable/unsourced -- Zanaq 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge into the appropriate article, but I don't think deletion is necessary. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a stub about a piece of software that does seem to exist. It is very short and uninformative but not an ad or vanity page. Farily minor piece of software which is directly related to wikipedia.--Nick Y. 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Aside from my philosophical belief that the behind-the-scenes Wiki stuff should be kept out of articles as much as possible, I feel this software isn't notable enough. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to a more appropiate namespace, either User: or Wikipedia: Computerjoe's talk 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In case you don't know there's an adequate article at Commons:Commons:Tools/Commonist (that article there was written by me). Beside that it's just a stub without any useful information and what I dislike most is that the original author himself added the stub template to the article. I think this attitude throwing such stubs onto the feet of others qualifies deletion alone. Arnomane 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC) P.S.: Wikipedia is also no place for self reference.
• Delete per above; also, one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Weak argument given for deletion. Yeah, I suck at creating articles. I acknowledge this. Calling the article unreferenced isn't true, because, if one were to look one would see 2 references to it. Alleged "notability" has never been an official criteria for inclusion or deletion. This concludes my 5-am argument. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per naom. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: way to insignificant for an article, no indication of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 00:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move it to Wikipedia:Commonist--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to appropriate user space or maybe WP:TOOLS. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 05:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• WP: it. THE KING 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Aguerriero (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per B.Wind Crazynas 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Drosophila - Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a good fit for listings of all kinds of random software. Get this thing a SourceForge homepage and leave the encyclopedia to articles on encyclopedic topics. --Cyde↔Weys 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move per above digital_me^(t/c) 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or WP it... per WP:NOT. ---J.S (t|c) 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move per above --Wisden17 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move Surely there's room off the mainspace for a tool potentially useful for editors ? Equendil Talk 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Move In case it extends. The subject is useful, the article nearly empty, and deleting won't be a loss as well, though.CP/M 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, next to no information. If Wikipedia:Commonist is to be created Commons:Tools/Commonist contains ample information, no need to use this page. Daduzi 09:54, 3 June 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.