Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard office document formats debate

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. --Coredesat 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard office document formats debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Even with all the POV and crystal ball speculation removed, this could never amount to more than an unencyclopedic essay. Zarquon 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , the article is mostly full of rubbish anyways. hAl 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As eciting as the topic is, I don't believe it's encyclopedic. TSO1D 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While it's an interesting topic, and while I am an OpenOffice.org user myself, it doesn't belong here. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with some regrets. Portions of this text, heavily edited, would indeed make valuable additions to the document file format article, which is brief and stubly. It would need thorough editing for NPOV and encyclopedic style, and I'd encourage the author to work on that one. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:SNOW FirefoxMan 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - agree with Smerdis, needs culling & better resources, but there is a core of an article in there. SkierRMH,01:38, 14 December 2006 (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.