Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comaudio


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comaudio
un-notability Melaen 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as compucruft, non-notable etc. Stifle 00:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak keep Even if a subject is non-notable to most people, it might be notable to some. What is lost by keeping an article that will hardly be visited anyway? If an article contains verifiable information, I'd say keep it. Wiki is not paper. However, the article does need to be cleaned up to conform to WP:STYLE. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 12:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides here, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The text of a speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister may be verifiable, but it's patently unencyclopedic. There are topics, even notable ones, that pass the verifiability test with flying colours but fail miserably when it comes to the test of encyclopedic value. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The text of that speech might be of interest to someone, so why not include it? Granted, I see your point, but if someone wants to waste their time writing an article on a NN subject, I say let them. Doesn't hurt me. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because a speech is unencyclopedic. That sort of thing is for Wikisource, a collection of source texts, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 03:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Plug: Please come help develop a guideline for articles such as this: see Notability (software) --Perfecto 06:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - completed software MAY be notable if it is of historic value or extremely popular, but a fricken object library used in compiling other software is NOT notable. Ruby 14:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely non-notable --BadSeed 01:08, 21 January 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.