Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compojure Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compojure

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 redirect to Clojure. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compojure

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

I found no notability for this web framework. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Clojure. It seems to spark interest within the small Clojure community but there aren't enough searches to register on Google Trends (as there are for "Spring framework" or "CakePHP") and for example there isn't even a self-created entry on Freecode. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with Clojure seems like an obvious solution here. Did this occur to the nominator? --Kvng (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have to be rude? SL93 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this came off as rude. I expect AfD nominators to follow procedure and I ask questions when I suspect it has not. Did you perform step C.4 of WP:BEFORE? --Kvng (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always follow WP:BEFORE. I still don't believe this should be merged as significance to the Clojure project hasn't been provided. Why did you suspect that I didn't? SL93 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you cited WP:N which has to do with notability for stand-alone article. Criteria for merging a fact in an existing article is more permissive. --Kvng (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think this shouldn't be merged though. It is not a major part of Clojure. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the actions SL93 has taken have been appropriate - it is reasonable to favor deletion in this case rather than a merge and act on that by creating an AfD nomination - but I just disagree and think that the content should be preserved as accessible to non-admins by merging into Clojure, even if it is immediately deleted from the new article, so that it's still accessible to the average editor in the history of a non-deleted article. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 01:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect I have added the single sentence that is the entirety of Compojure to Clojure. Compojure may now be ~~deleted~~ redirected to Clojure#Variants. --Kvng (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next step in a cut-and-paste merge is to blank the page and redirect, so it doesn't accidentally get re-created. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 11:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that's not good form while the page is under AfD discussion here. --Kvng (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but what I'm saying is that for whoever closes this AfD, instead of carrying out "Compojure may now be deleted" as you said, they should continue with the half-completed merge steps. --≜∮truthious ᛔandersnatch≜ 15:47, 21 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.