Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Git

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was disam.. Already done. Woohookitty 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Git (software)

The current page shows an obscure usage of the word "Git", which is primarily a british slang term. It should be deleted to make way for a defintion, or a disambiguation page with a link to the definition. The page GIT, which is a disambiguation page for acronyms, should be merged with it. Artw 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)

• Disambig Git should be moved to Git (SCS) or something like that. Lets avoid systematic bias towards geeky subjects, pop culture, and pop culture geeky subjects, and treat this one fairly. Gmaxwell 6 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Provisional keep--does the British slang term deserve an article? If it's merely a slang word, perhaps not. We can keep this, assuming that the slang term doesn't need an encyclopedia article. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 21:14 (UTC)
  • No, it's already at Wiktionary. →Raul654 July 6, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
    • That it is.. and we should provide a nice link to it from the disambig page that belongs at that name as is normal. Gmaxwell 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
• Disambig--It's a 500 year old slang term - I'm pretty certain that given the chance an article can be gotten out of it. If not then Git should be used for a disambig page with the link to the Wikctionary being the first item. The current article is pretty Linux-specific and not at all what most non-Linux people would expect to see if looking for "Git", I see no reason not to move it to Git (SCS). --Artw 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • Um... you're the guy who started this vote for deletion in the first place. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
    • Oops, sorry, didn't realise the first post counted as a vote. Please don;t take that as a sneaky attempt to vote twice or anything. --Artw 6 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)
• Keep. Wiktionary will be just fine for describing the meaning and etymology of the word. There are thousands of words more than 500 years old, and absolutely no reason to clutter Wikipedia with them unless they are extremely special. - Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
  • I don't see anyone using that argument for replacing the pages for Hot or Cold with definitions for software tools (or Fanfic aliens) that happen to have that name. Definate Americancentric / Linuxcentric bias going on here. --Artw 6 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind about this not being special enough (based on the comments of others). However, there is absolutely no reason for the present article to be deleted. This should have been brought up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a important Version control system. --cesarb 6 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
• Disambig. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
• Disambig. What's the harm in having a disambiguation page? That way Linux users can find their term, and Brits can find theirs. "Git" is probably in the top 5 Brit-specific slang terms, and as such an important part of everyday culture. --Unsigned comment by User:Vizjim.
• Disambig. Don't be such a git, it's a very common word out here. Unsigned comment by User:Max Kon.
• Disambig, obviously. Dcarrano
• Move to "git (computing)" or the like, redirect git to git (disambiguation)? No reason to delete the page, or make things too confusing, but it's certainly not the dominant use. Shimgray 6 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
  • "x" should never redirect to "x (disambiguation)". If "x" needs to be disambiguated, the page called "x" should be the disambiguation page. Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
    • Strange; was sure I'd seen this before. Perhaps it was just a temporary measure when I encountered it. Shimgray 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you've seen the opposite; it's common to redirect "x (disambiguation)" to "x" when the disambiguation page is at "x". --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
• Keep. This certaintly isn't the way to sort out an issue over disambiguation, which the proposer of this votes for deletion wants. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
  • Agreed, every single vote (including the nominator's) is to "keep" (disambig is a special case of "keep"). --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
    • Unfortuantly now that it's up for VfD, so it shall remain for five days, so the disambiguation which the nominator actually wanted is going to have to wait awhile. -- Joolz
  • If you go look at the talk page of Git, and the edit history of GIT (the disambig) you'll see why it was sent here. An RFC would have been more correct, but this is getting the outside attention it needed as well. Gmaxwell 7 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
• What's the point of this VfD? Who wants to delete this? Vote for Deletion is not a place to discuss if we rename the article, turn it into a disambig or do something else. -- Taku July 7, 2005 02:59 (UTC)
• Disambig makes sense. - FrancisTyers 7 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Note: article was moved to Git (software). --cesarb 14:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.