Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBRLS

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 nothing really/invalid nomination, since this is not a deletion request. Merging doesn't require administrative intervention, and it doesn't seem anyone objects, so that's at normal editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XBRLS

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

I doubt that this notable to get it's enough article, maybe merge it to XBRL. mabdul 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure This is AfD, not Articles for Redirection. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you are right with that, the outcome of an AfD can be a merge/redirection or even a cleanup. mabdul 14:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question did you consider doing the merge/redirect WP:BEFORE opening this AfD? --Kvng (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: This may have been a little hastily created but let's get consensus before closing it

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure as per user:Unscintillating and lack of response from user:mabdul. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sry, for the late response. Really: yes I considered placing simple tags on two pages and waiting two years (or more) before somebody is doing anything. I still doubt that there should be two pages and thus nominating this page at AfD. The result of an AFD doesn't have to be a deletion, it can also be a merger, cleanup or redirection... so why didn't you (Kvng) collecting some arguments against any changes of this article? mabdul 17:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion, result of an AfD can be a merge but the procedural complaint by myself (and I presume user:Unscintillating) is that you shouldn't open an AfD unless you want the article deleted wholesale. If from the outset, you think a merge is in order, WP:SOFIXIT. If you're not up for the work, it can indeed take a while for another volunteer to get around to doing it for you. --Kvng (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "deletion guideline" that includes WP:SK#1 is marked as being "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to XBRL, per WP:PRODUCT (it is a product, isn't it?) and nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2012 (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.