Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birds of a Feather (computing)
- 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 Nakon 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Birds of a Feather (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This phrase for an informal meeting of computing practitioners does not rise to the high standard for neologisms required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—This is now standard practice at most computer conferences. Some non-computer-related conferences also follow the practice. "BoF session" gets 68,100 ghits.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Rami R 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is essentially a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep - plenty of links out there, but it would be better if there were a major, non-press-release article about this phenomenon somewhere. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -These responses do not address the need for the notability of the term as a neologism. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to me to be an article primarily on the meetings themselves rather than the name for the meeting. More emphasis is placed on the characteristics and instances of these meetings rather than the origin of the term, for instance. Ron Duvall (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -These responses do not address the need for the notability of the term as a neologism. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Both the term and the practice are in common use, and have made it into the Jargon File. That's notable enough for me. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.