Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archon (software)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 04:40, 6 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. –MuZemike 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Archon (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable software (We need a CSD for things other than music!) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apologies, clicked save too early. Two journal articles now added as references, showing the need in the archival community that Archon was built to address. Benuski (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Barely 8 minutes into this article's creation, this was nominated for AfD. This nomination appears to violate the AfD guideline. It's also rude to treat an article creator this way. PolicarpioM (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after Benuski added sourcing (although I can't access the sources directly) I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion here. Editors with more knowledge of this subject matter might be able to suggest possible candidates for merging this information if it can't progress much farther than a stub. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above or merge to Encoded Archival Description. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.