Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gpl-violations.org
- 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why this web site should have its own article rather than being mentioned in GPL (if at all). Delete. Catamorphism 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the correct thing to do would be to merge and redirect. I have no objection to that, but since I was the one who created it earlier today, I think it should stand as its own article, about a (by low wiki standards) notable group, so keep. Thanks, Sdedeo 06:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, not-notable. Make sure the URL is in the external links in GPL and delete. Proto t c 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the URL is now in the external links in GNU General Public License. Proto t c 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Proto. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep and expand --Kyknos 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge one or two sentences, maybe the link, with GPL. Jasmol 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Agree with Proto. Eusebeus 15:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks ok. -- JJay 11:52, 20 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.