Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Useful unix command (second nomination)
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cydebot (talk | contribs) at 03:05, 27 April 2006 (Robot - Removing extraneous links to old VfD templates.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 03:05, 27 April 2006 by Cydebot (talk | contribs) (Robot - Removing extraneous links to old VfD templates.)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this has been transwikied, it should be deleted, just like everyone agreed to do last time. Thanks for the needless bureaucracy. —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This is not an article. I see no reason at all to drag it through a slow AfD process. Friday (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete, of course. What bureaucracy forces us to list this again? I thought CSD A5 allows us to speedy articles that have been AfD'd and then successfully transwiki'd. — brighterorange (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A5 only lets us speedy articles that have been afd'd with a result to transwiki. Despite every comment being to delete or transwiki, it was closed as no consensus. —Cryptic (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Gazpacho 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- rm (UNIX for "delete"). Not useful article. Barno 20:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. CSD-criteria should be interpreted far more liberally. / Peter Isotalo 01:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
Censure nominator for bad faith renomination of an article properly closed just two days ago with no consensus, and for falsely claiming that the previous result was unanimous for transwiki.See apology below. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Did you look at the comments in the previous vfd, 100% of which clearly favored either a deletion or a transwiki as I stated, or just count which words they bolded? —Cryptic (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly I think I was far too harsh in assuming bad faith above, and I withdraw that imputation and apologise without reserve. However you said, or appeared to say, that all agreed to transwiki, now you say all favored either deletion or transwiki. Don't you see that deletion and transwiki are completely different operations? --Tony SidawayTalk 11:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, and for purposes of whether the article exists in Wikipedia, the answer to Tony's question is "No. Of course not." Nandesuka 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.