Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPython

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 keep. John254 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPython

IPython (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page originally put up for speedy deletion, {{hangon}} was added, and I'd keep the article, but I feel some debate is needed. Evilclown93 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see a speedy tag in the article's history, and there's no reason for deletion stated in the nomination. So where are we going with this? --Butseriouslyfolks 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a hangon and some explanation on the talk page... Evilclown93 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - after going through every single revision of this article, it's never had a speedy at any point - User:Ianozsvald added a {{hangon}} with nothing to hang on for. I'd guess it was posted in error/misunderstanding after receiving this copyvio warning. As it stands I can't see any reason to delete providing the current content isn't a copyvio — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there was initially a copyvio in copying a few words from the project's own website description. But that's been corrected, and we can easily expand the description with our own words detailing what IPython does. LotLE×talk 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, was never tagged for speedy deletion. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. That was my copyvio warning, but I had already removed the copyvio passage. I see now that a section of the cv template I used assumes the whole article is a cv and suggests the {{hangon}}. I'll have to find a better template for cv portions of articles. In any event, I was able to excise the cv from the original article, so there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:50, 25 May 2007 (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.