Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trampoline (computers)
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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trampoline (computers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are many reasons that the concept of trampolining in computers is not right for an article; developers of computers have no consensus on using this word to describe such links and the trampolining of links has replacable concepts such as proxies and disambigs in the computer world anyway, do the article is an anathema to me and doubtless other wikipedians too; should be WP:Salt. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator - you should have added the AfD tag to the top of the article and listed this page on the AfD log - see instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I have now done this for you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I advised Cymbelmineer that the nomination is not complete. There is no imperative to complete such a nomination, especially not if you consider the nomination rationale invalid. If not completed, I'd deleted it as housekeeping or userfied the statement.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see Cymbelmineer has made another incomplete AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Liberation Front, which was fixed by another editor. If Cymbelmineer is serious about making AfD nominations, they should learn to do it properly. If they are not serious, then this behaviour of making incomplete nominations is disruptive. I have left a note on their talk page. Anyway, might as well let this AfD run its course now. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've closed that AfD and had already advised the user as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see Cymbelmineer has made another incomplete AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Liberation Front, which was fixed by another editor. If Cymbelmineer is serious about making AfD nominations, they should learn to do it properly. If they are not serious, then this behaviour of making incomplete nominations is disruptive. I have left a note on their talk page. Anyway, might as well let this AfD run its course now. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I advised Cymbelmineer that the nomination is not complete. There is no imperative to complete such a nomination, especially not if you consider the nomination rationale invalid. If not completed, I'd deleted it as housekeeping or userfied the statement.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator - you should have added the AfD tag to the top of the article and listed this page on the AfD log - see instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. I have now done this for you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - enough sources to establish notability, and can't see any valid reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As Gandalf61 says, there had to be a reason to delete. And that a page is anathema to somebody is not a (valid) reason. -- BenTels (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to trampoline (disambiguation): Although I find the nom incomprehensible, the article is a somewhat random collection of links… essentially, this is already a disambiguation page. It could all go in a subheading of the main disambig page. Either way, this content should be edited to conform to mos:dab. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (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.