Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary

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 keep. John254 05:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary

Is a dictionary Definition. I don't feel there is anything else to be said about the topic. It was originally created by people unaware of its use outside of the term "Proprietary Software" and left unmerged due to the term "Proprietary Hardware". Given that those topics use a somewhat incorrect definition of Proprietary that was fair enough. However, those topics are now pretty complete in definition, there is nothing left to merge, and the actual definition already exists at wiktionary. I questioned the article on the talk page very recently, but decided to AfD when i noticed the same question had been asked 4 years ago and not recieved a response. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page for blue-linked items which could be referred to with the term "Proprietary": i.e. the Wiktionary link to the term, and any non-redirects listed at [1] - my count says 14 items. Wipe the unsourced and unarticled entries. -- saberwyn 00:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than a dicdef. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More of a good disambiguation page than a dictionary definition. --Canley (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page per Saberwyn. Dab pages are the only real exception allowed by the no-adjectival-titles policy (WP:ADJECTIVE), and this case seems sufficiently parallel to the example of Organic given there. Deor (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good little stub, or convert to a dab page. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While i'm feeling that a disambiguation might be the way to go (I was under the impression Deletion and Disam were mutually exclusive and AfD was required first so you're not just overwriting the previous form, my bad), i have to ask, what is a "perfectly good little stub"? Are you implying we should keep stub articles that have absolutely no chance of becoming anything more than a stub? Even when they are in complete opposition to numerous policies. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2008 (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.