Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Find and replace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with JIP. Find and replace is undoubtedly a useful feature in word processing, but the article falls in line with both WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTDIC. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we comment on the topic here which is certainly valid for an encyclopedia. Also I criticize the actions of the nominator SarahStierch who said in their edit summary page triage, when they obviously intended page destruction not repair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article should be kept, I'd like to see an argument why. Claiming that it's "certainly valid" and then criticizing the nominator offers no particular evidence to support keeping the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe edit summary isn't actually my fault, it's the new Special:NewPagesFeed that made the edit summary when I nominated it. So please don't think I was trying to be shady or unintentionally sneaky. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per I, Jethrobot. The majority of the article runs afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO and were that part be taken out, all that would be left would be a stub that goes against WP:NOTDIC. I'm not finding any sources that talk about the concept of this word precessing feature in any way that isn't just a How To or definition itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]