Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenDocument Foundation

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 merge to OpenDocument. Sandstein 07:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDocument Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Defunct organisation, and not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OpenDocument: This organization seems to have been an important part of ODF's past. I've found a few tidbits:
- Foley, Mary Jo (29 October 2007). "ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML". ZDNet. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 23 December 2007.
- LaMonica, Martin (29 October 2007). "Former OpenDocument advocates bolt for W3C standard". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 18 April 2012.

I must comment, however, that simple copying and pasting is not the way to go with this merger. The prose of this article is unprofessional and unsuitable for Wikipedia. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OpenDocument as this defunct organization seems to have generated little press for standalone notability and is a WP:Permastub. I would agree with User:flowing dreams that a simple copy & paste merger would not work. I think some of the prose can just be cut out. I'm not sure the best way to handle the merger, but it could be done via seamlessly integrating one or more references to the organization into the OpenDocument prose or by cutting and rewriting the OpenDocument Foundation prose into a separate section called Defunct foundation (year-->year) or OpenDocument Foundation (year-->year), perhaps? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was thinking embedding those details in the Standardization section would do fine. Maybe rename the section to History too. It won't be a cut and paste job, I've already done this once for the Diaspora article. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that makes sense and sounds reasonable. Thanks! Doug Mehus (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2019 (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.