Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ODD (One Document Does it all)


 * 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. Most delete arguments invalidated by sources added by David Eppstein. lifebaka++ 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ODD (One Document Does it all)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable initialism that lacks significant context. Fails WP:NEO. Tavix (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete only reference is a wiki. Makes no attempt to establish notability. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 05:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources, no notability established. J I P  | Talk 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added some sources and slightly expanded the description. At least one of the sources (the W3C one) is third-party. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment just pointing out that the W3C reference is a series of examples of how to apply Internationalization Tag Sets to other XML types, which does not necessarily denote notability. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, the article is the stubbiest of stubs, but a bit of research on Google and Google Scholar shows that it is in fact notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article (search on Burnard and Rahtz). Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a fairly obscure topic, but I feel that someone might search for this in wikipedia and deserve to get an answer. It's not a commercial product, it's a programming language design philosophy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems central to the Text Encoding Initiative and now has multiple third-party sources that describe it in a nontrivial way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, shouldn't it be moved to "One document does it all"? The ODD part is just an abbreviation of the term. Tavix (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The TEI web pages seem to talk about it either just as "ODD" or as "ODD (One Document Does it all)". So to me it seems more like ODD is the name of the file format, and "One Document Does it all" is the explanation of how it came to be given that name. Similarly, e.g., our XML page is not titled "Extensible Markup Language", despite being an acronym for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep The term appears vaguely notable, and certainly sourceable. Probably doesn't meet the requirments of WP:NEO for deletion.  http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22One+Document+Does+it+all%22&btnG=Search+Books, http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/09/15/xtreme.html, http://www.extrememarkup.com/2007/abstracts.html. Hobit (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a neologism but an established term within its field and now properly sourced thanks to good work by David Eppstein. TerriersFan (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2008 (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.