User talk:Frap

Proposed deletion of Bootchart

The article Bootchart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software. No independent references. Tagged for notability since November 2008.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Web app nominated for deletion

Hi. Letting you know that Web app has been nominated for deletion (or redirection to Web application) because the contents attempt to duplicate the already existing and industry-accepted term Rich Internet application. Please share your thoughts here:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Web_app -Object404 (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infosuicide

The article Infosuicide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sign so far of "reliable sources" using this neologism; see also Wikipedia:NOTNEO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CWC 12:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seed oils

Are you aware of List of vegetable oils? Waitak (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure if I were aware of that article when I created the article as it was quite awhile ago. The article I created deals specially with seed oils. Not all vegetable oils are seed oils, however the article could be merged into the vegetable oils article under its own header. -- Frap (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well it would work to put it under its own header. The majority of the oils in the list are seed oils, after all. I haven't counted the number of entries, but I'm sure there are well over 100 there. All of the ones in seed oils are already in list of vegetable oils. Waitak (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I created the article I wanted to explicitly collect all seed oils into one place. Frap (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Sorry, didn't mean that to come across as a criticism. Waitak (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain why I reverted your changes to List of vegetable oils. In short:

• All of the oils that you added are already in the list, with comprehensive entries and references.
• Many if not most of the other entries in List of vegetable oils are seed oils. Having a separate section for a small selection of seed oils isn't needed.
• The organizing principle for the article, as stated in the lead-in, is by use. Having a separate section for just seed oils, particularly when so many of the other oils that are categorized by use are also seed oils, doesn't work with the way the article is currently organized.

Waitak (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick addendum: Eyeballing the list, 88 of the approximately 125 existing entries in the list are seed oils. Waitak (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge "Open Source Business Models" with "Commercial Open Source Applications"?

Hi. I don't know if you're the principle author of the Open Source Business Models article, but you have certainly contributed extensively. I'm in a similar situation with a related article "Commercial Open Source Applications," and it *might* be worth the effort to merge the two.

I don't have a lot of time to put into this, but if you think it's a good idea please contact me at davofanmail at the comcast.net domain.

Thanks.