Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (terminology)

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. There is a consensus below to keep the content. Though there is some support for a merge there is not a consensus as to an appropriate target. Further discussion, on the appropriate talk pages, is needed. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia (terminology)

Wikipedia (terminology) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I'm just not sure this is necessary in the main namespace. There's nothing to suggest that the mere terminology passes the general notability guideline - multiple reliable non-trivial published sources covering just the terminology in detail? Also, either this article is at the wrong title, or there are lots of irrelevant examples, because there are many wikis discussed in this article that are not Wikipedia. Perhaps a better title would have been Wiki- and -pedia (terminology). As I said, I just don't think this page is necessary. Another possibility is to compress and merge this information to wiki, which I think could work well, but equally I think deletion is plausible. I understand that this article was created due to the perceived need for it, but personally, I think we don't need a seperate page for this. I'm merely considering this for deletion, and am willing to see what people think so that their views might change mine on this - it's not an outright "I want this deleted now". h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, if you think a merge is a possibility, you should start a merge discussion before listing it for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, although the name is just wrong. History of the name Wikipedia? List of Wikipedia-related names? It should probably be explicitly a List. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge somewhere. Yes, our the terminology is confusing, but I'm not sure if this is the best way of explaining things. Perhaps... (a crazy idea...) add a diagram to Wiki/Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation/etc? The thing is explained in prose form in various articles, we don't have a diagram yet =) (only half-joking) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content into Wikipedia, Wiki and List of wikis as appropriate, then delete or redirect. I agree that this article is superfluous, and its content would fit quite comfortably into other articles. Vl'hurg ^talk 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into List of wikis. Most if not all of the content to be merged into the other articles already exists in those articles. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere - the information might be useful.--Kozuch (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Redirect or Merge- as a new Wikipedian I've been turning to this page a lot for direction. This is probably where a lot of newbies will end up as they try to figure out what is going on here. IMHO, I seems unwise to have this page be deleted. --Booksellergirl (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's pretty much agreed deletion is not the answer. Deletion is mostly for things that have to die, not for articles that are misnamed or duplicative. Better to cancel the deletion and discuss the questions of move, merge, whatever, on its talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2008 (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.