Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous (adjective)


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ubiquitous (adjective)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Clear WP:DICDEF. The examples in the "article" are copied directly from ubiquitous. This could, I suppose, be soft redirected to Wiktionary, but deletion seems better to me. Deor (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is actually the other way around:
 * I was compliant to the recommendation of this being directed to Wiktionary, as one option, and wrote the quotes section for wikt:ubiquitous, in case that becomes the decided option.Starlighsky (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Starlighsky


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems like an utterly unnecessary content fork of Ubiquitous computing Geschichte (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. As it was when the article was started, the link for defining ubiquitous was incorrect. The article is an effort to correct the information. Starlighsky (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are too many problems with theological terms being confused with terms in medicine, computer science, and other topics.

Here is the lede for omnipresence:

Omnipresence (redirect from Ubiquity (ability)) Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious context... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary or else delete. The disambiguator (adjective) in the title marks this as dictionary content, which belongs at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to title the article Ubiquitous, but it was already taken as an article that redirects to omnipresent.
 * Allowing this article to titled Ubiquitous could solve several problems at once. Starlighsky (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a dictionary definition, and redundant with the Wiktionary page (which, like any dictionary, is fully able to clarify separate uses in different domains). No need to redirect. Llajwa (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is so many technical terms in medicine and computer science were redirected from ubiquitous to omnipresence.
 * Here is an example of the problem here on Wikipedia:
 * Omnipresence (redirect from Ubiquity (ability)) Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious context... Starlighsky (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm having some trouble following here. Is the idea that this should be a WP:DAB page for Ubiquitous computing and Omnipresence? (I'm not seeing any consistent usage of ubiquitous as a concept in medicine...) Even if future editors decide that's a good idea, I would delete this article and just expand Ubiquitous into a disambiguation page... or just redirect to Ubiquity. Suriname0 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook case of WP:DICDEF. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDICT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The outcome of this discussion is relevant to the following redirect for discussion: Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 ; Suriname0 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion, To put a finer point in it, if it's just a definition and list of examples, then it violates DICDEF. Yet if it explores the impact and cultural examples of a word, then it's notable. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (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.