Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo


 * 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, because there was no consensus to merge. Future merge proposals (given there appears to be some support for such a move) should be done editorially, where such a procedure can gather a clearer consensus (as the 'delete' option is taken out of the equation).  Daniel  09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Foo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a definition of a word and is already included in Wiktionary. Pckilgore 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not redirect this page to Foo fighter? --Blanchardb 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant programming jargon, page is already more than a dicdef. (foo is just the first sentence of this article.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Although honestly I could see a strong case for merging foo, bar (computer science), and foobar. They are obviously very closely related. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * keep There's a lot more info here than a simple dictionary definition.  Also foo as a redirect to foo fighters is a bit vague.  ARended Winter 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but it should include articles on words where those words can support an encyclopedia article rather than a simple dictionary definition. This word seems to surpass that standard, and thus the article should be kept.  It should be noted that most words will NOT be able to meet this standard; however this one does and it should be kept. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep ARendedWinter & Jayron32 have it right, an article amounting to more than a dicdef is certainly possbile (and redirect to foo fighters is a bad idea). Pete.Hurd 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Significantly more than just a dictionary definition. --Anakin (contribs • complaints) 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to Strong Keep. Just look at the what links here page. Not to mention that there are Wikipedia policy pages that have links to this article. --Blanchardb 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of those links seem to have arisen from the SCOTUSCase template, which has a variable or placeholder or something named "Foo"... —David Eppstein 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment This is probably the case, but by pure chance I came across one that doesn't. Something about sockpuppeteering. --Blanchardb 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable term used in computer science. —  Wen li  (reply here) 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this is certainly more than a definition. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - The term is hardly just a dictionary def. And whoever suggested a connection to Foo Fighters apparently didn't even read the article.  There's no relationship at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.218.77 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Important to computer science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.93 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge to foobar (as User:Dhartung says) or metasyntactic variable. I don't think we should put work into maintaining multiple articles if they describe the same subject.  Jason McHuff 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with redirect to foobar, or vice-versa. Foo & company are important, but we don't need multiple articles about different common metasyntactic variables. - Daekharel 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daekharel (talk • contribs)
 * Merge After looking at the metasyntactic variable page, I think I'm going to reevaluate my own opinion to merge. I guess I can see the merit of including this information on wikipedia, but multiple articles on essentially the same subject seems a little silly. At least merge with foobar Pckilgore 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Struck through my prior vote. This should be merged with metasyntactic variable as described above.  After reading the article again, and reading the article on metasyntactic variables, it really seems that foo is merely a common example of a metasyntactic variable, and thus really could serve well as a section of that article.   A merge would make both articles better.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with metasyntactic variable. There's not much more to say about "Foo" than "it's a metasyntactic variable" and not much more to say about metasyntactic variables than "foo & co." LW izard  @ 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever gets done, at least keep Foo as a redirect. I know it's quite popular as a placeholder on WP. shoy  (words words) 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with foobar and bar (computer science) into metasyntactic variable. No reason to have four articles discussing essentially the same concept. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 06:15, 11 November 2007 (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.