Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OOXML Ballot Results

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. NawlinWiki 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOXML Ballot Results

Non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, and clearly unencyclopediac trash--Sefringle^Talk 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - maybe move to wikisource? Corpx 04:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedias of Wikipedia's scope contain scores of information, not just information that's also in Britannica (this is a result of Wikipedia being online and therefore not incurring printing costs). Furthermore, the presence of original research can be repaired by citing sources, so there is no need to delete it. SteveSims 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sefringle is objectively wrong about it being original research - it's a vote tally. How can that be OR? Raul654 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, and perhaps WP:ADVERT. Who will care in a century? Michaelbusch 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is this an advert, it's a record of votes taken during a standardization process? As to who will care, inclusion is about notability, not whether you or I will care. As long as something is notable & verifiable, it doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not. KTC 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the summary section into OOXML and throw the detailed votes into the bit bucket. The result of the vote is worth noting. JIP | Talk 07:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims. WLD^talk|edits 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of history --elgaard 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wikisource. Even the tally (individual votes) seem to be interesting (and notable) enough.--Imz 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OR claim can be remedied with proper sourcing. How each country voted, and especially their comments, may have a significant impact on the future of document standards. This is also one of the highest profile ISO votes in recent history. That makes it notable to me. — jmorgan (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardisation part of OOXML should split off into a more detailed separate article, with content from this merge into that new article. KTC 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims. --Ciao 90 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the standardization process should be split from OOXML into its own page... this vote should be included in that page. The reports of possible ballot tampering and sudden influx of upgraded member status, along with other controversies are interesting and significant, with no precedent in ISO history. --the previous comment was made by Jonathan888 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC) who forgot to log in.[reply]
Keep this, until OOXML is Split and then Merge into Standardization of Office Open XML --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. ISO ballot results should only be referenced from an ISO site or even not at all. hAl 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, and certainly. • Lawrence Cohen 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/split/merge per Michalis Famelis and KTC. Han-Kwang (t) 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list can not be found at iso.org so it is needed here. Chlor 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SteveSims and Michalis Famelis. Tange 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Voting (with votes structured by countries) is standard ISO procedure. I see no reason why a voting about a relative obscure standard should be on WP. Should we include votings on programming languages? All of them? Perhaps WP could mirror ISO website then. Pavel Vozenilek 02:38, 9 September 2007 (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.