Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Originality

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Originality

• Abstain now I suppose It was transwikied to wiktionary and therefore is not needed here. gren 01:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important concept. Has potential to be expanded to cover the question of if computers can have "original" ideas, and the legal definition of original in copyright/patent disputes. Kappa 03:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wow, I figured this was a sure delete.... I'd take it off VfD (not sure if I can thought...) since I guess I figured those issues would be covered elsewhere. gren 04:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If they are, we'll still need some kind of disambig page. Don't worry about withdrawing though, I'm sure there'll be some delete votes. Kappa 04:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Like, ohmigawsh. I've never heard of originality before. Keep, on condition that someone do what Kappa suggests. Haikupoet 00:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Kappa, I dropped a few lines about originality as a requirement for a patent in the U.S. -- 8^D ^gab 06:29, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Thanks BD2412. Now all we need is an article for nonobvious ... Kappa 21:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Turns out there's already a nonobviousness article; I added a redirect. -- 8^D ^gab 16:52, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
      • Nice find, thanks Kappa 17:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Theo (Talk) 00:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.