Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenDocument icons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenDocument icons

OpenDocument icons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a proposal for new icons. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • These icons are indeed not in use by, or sanctioned by, any ODF vendor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TZander (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the designer of the icons from catnip.co.uk and have no objection to their being used on this page.If it is decided not to delete the page, I will upload them under the GFDL. PeteHarlow 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to OpenDocument if verified that OpenOffice.org has endorsed these icons as official; otherwise delete per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Barno 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to "merge if OpenDocument Fellowship has formally endorsed these, not if they're just somebody's proposal." Still not significant enough for their own article. Barno 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • These icons are for the OpenDocument Format - not for OpenOffice.org. They were developed in conjunction with the OpenDocument Fellowship. PeteHarlow 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • >>>>These icons are indeed not in use by, or sanctioned by, any ODF vendor

This is not correct, it is used by Mobile Office, an ODF implementation for Symbian smartphones

  • The OpenDocument Fellowship will endorse these icons - what would you like them to do? PeteHarlow 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Just telling us would not be good enough, since it has to be verifiable. I haven't yet dug through the Fellowship's website beyond seeing no mention of the icons on the front page. They should post some notice of endorsement on their website and probably should distribute a press release so other publications (reliable sources, not just blogs and forums) will provide third-party independent coverage. That would lead us to choose between "keep" and "merge" based on editors' judgment of the topic's significance, rather than having us forced by policy to "delete as unverifiable". When a source is available, it should be added to the article (or to the content merged into OpenDocument) so future editors won't delete the information. Barno 18:16, 30 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.