Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edit conflict (2nd nomination)

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 (edit conflict) keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

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

Nomination by proxy for User talk:81.164.215.61, I state no opinion either way. Rationale: Does not appear to be notable. Jac16888 ^Talk 16:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is discussed in at least four books on subjects such as Wikipedia, Web 2.0 and Google Apps. High quality references are readily available, and I will add them when I am editing with a computer instead of an Android smart phone. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The earlier AfD debate should be discounted, as the topic itself has become notable in the years since that debate. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The earlier debate seems to have concerned a soft redirect, not an article, and is therefore entirely irrelevant.--Kotniski (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not controversial, usefully informative, and plenty of sources available. Could possibly be merged into a larger article like wiki.--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as this topic is too narrow to be usefully understood as a standalone article (notability is also seriously at question). Unsure of target, but wiki would do fine. Skomorokh 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to wiki. It may be necessary to spin a separate article at some point, but right now it's just an unsourced stub. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no merge Goes beyond just wikis. Notability seems to be established. Does need work, but a reasonable article. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Edit conflict" is wiki terminology for what is basically a "merge conflict". See Merge (revision control). If consensus tends towards merging, it might be appropriate to merge it with either wiki or something like Merge (revision control). —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've expanded the article and added four references.Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable article. bW 19:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck the statements from BelloWello ("bW") who has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for sock puppetry. OCNative (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor article, but the topic is reasonable and there's no good reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important concept in any collaborative development. Any reason this couldn't be discussed on the talk page first? --Kvng (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article has been sufficiently improved by Cullen. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (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.