Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozilla (version)

Content is not and never will be encyclopedic, is a source text, and is of narrow interest, based literally on source material available elsewhere (on mozilla.org). Just provide a pointer from the main page instead of maintaining this fragile article. --Improv 18:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * See below for why I brought this back to VfD --Improv 15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mozilla is easily one of the most notable pieces of software ever, but this is a level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  Few people are going to be interested in this information, and none of them are going to look for it on Wikipedia rather than on the Mozilla web site.    &mdash;Triskaideka 18:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is just plain silly- noboy goes to an encyclopedia for this, and there's no way we can keep it up to date. Delete. -FZ 18:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: One more time: if they have the program, they have this. If they don't have the program, they don't need this.  Not encyclopedic. Geogre 20:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Per Ardonik's suggestion, merge and redirect to Mozilla. Geogre 00:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Evidently linked from Mozilla and modeled after Mozilla Firefox. I agree that care must be taken to keep Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox fans from turning those articles into gigantic compendiums of all things Mozilla, and I don't think that table is encyclopedic, but I'll have to admit that the Firefox table (while equally unencyclopedic) adds a nice touch to the Firefox article.  Perhaps we can cut it down to size, copy the style, and incorporate it into the Mozilla article?  My vote is to merge and redirect to Mozilla, though I would not be opposed to deletion.  --Ardonik.talk 20:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. To a section of Mozilla it should go. Geogre 00:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not encyclopedic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, indeed. Andre 00:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Move it back to a section on Mozilla. -Wins oddf
 * Trim it down to major versions and merge into Mozilla. - KeithTyler 18:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - let the Mozilla project worry about their version history. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge with Mozilla. Jayjg 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Followup: SimonP removed the VfD notice from the page, leaving the page intact contrary to votes cast (delete: 6, redirect: 6). I am restoring the VfD pending proper resolution. --Improv 15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not the job of the person clearing out VfD/Old to merge articles, a task that requires much effort and often specialist knowledge. Thus I moved the page to pages to be merged, as I do all such pages.  Improv what do you want? If you want the page merged then leave it where it was or do the deed yourself.  If you want it deleted then it is bad form to relist a page on VfD the day after it has been removed. Either wat this page should not be back on VfD. - SimonP 17:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is either up for discussion or not. Here's my two cents: I agree with most of the comments above, but most particularly with Ardonik and KeithTyler. CF Timeline of Linux development. It's also notable that the article is an orphan. Rossumcapek 17:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This should not be up for renomination yet. SimonP closed the page correctly.  6 delete and 6 redirect fails to reach concensus and defaults to keep - in this case, with a recommendation to merge and redirect.  Since anyone can do a merge and redirect, that is not a required action for the admin who is closing the debate.  The only change I would recommend is to ask SimonP to document his decision a bit more clearly. Rossami 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * SimonP removed it without leaving any kind of public notice anywhere that that was what happened. I communicated with him, and he said he put it up on list of pages to be moved. I am satisfied with this, but wish he had documented his action more clearly. --Improv 19:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)