Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPython

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Butseriouslyfolks (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 25 May 2007 ([[IPython]]: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
IPython (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Page originally put up for speedy deletion, {{hangon}} was added, and I'd keep the article, but I feel some debate is needed. Evilclown93 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see a speedy tag in the article's history, and there's no reason for deletion stated in the nomination. So where are we going with this? --Butseriouslyfolks 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a hangon and some explanation on the talk page... Evilclown93 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after going through every single revision of this article, it's never had a speedy at any point - User:Ianozsvald added a {{hangon}} with nothing to hang on for. I'd guess it was posted in error/misunderstanding after receiving this copyvio warning. As it stands I can't see any reason to delete providing the current content isn't a copyvioiridescenti (talk to me!) 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there was initially a copyvio in copying a few words from the project's own website description. But that's been corrected, and we can easily expand the description with our own words detailing what IPython does. LotLE×talk 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, was never tagged for speedy deletion. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That was my copyvio warning, but I had already removed the copyvio passage. I see now that a section of the cv template I used assumes the whole article is a cv and suggests the {{hangon}}. I'll have to find a better template for cv portions of articles. In any event, I was able to excise the cv from the original article, so there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]