- Java version history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
2 votes for keep > 1 vote for delete: the page in question is in fact useful to a wide range of audiences, and would be lost or clutter in the primary article on Java programming languages.
If my use of this template/form isn't up to wikipedia standards, I apologize for being unfamiliar with these systems of abstraction. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.228.136 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The delete votes cited policy and the keep votes were pretty terrible for the purposes of keeping the article, so I don't have any problem with the close. Note that the nominator typically counts as a delete !vote as well, and AfD isn't a headcount. That being said, I do think the keep !voters raise some good points and I would highly suggest an RfC to figure out how to sort this (assuming there hasn't already been a discussion on how to avoid these sorts of problems) as other similar articles have been identified, and there may be a way to recover and re-source this article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be scope to transwiki to somewhere like the Java Wikia (I'm not a programmer; there may be a much better transwiki target). I can see the consensus that this content isn't for Wikipedia but it could reasonably be preserved elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY relist: It is wildly inappropriate to close a discussion with very few !votes roughly split evenly without relisting it even once. I would also note that the closer's rationale completely ignores the fact that the "keep" !votes that supposedly admit the content is not compliant with policy are actually evidence that a full RfC with broad participation is needed on this issue, not that this specific page should be deleted without one. Modernponderer (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote in the deletion discussion for this article, almost all language articles have this kind of article, with what can be considered as the same "problems". Now the Java language article has no version history anymore. This is bordering ridiculous. The result of this discussion is that now it is impossible to know what should be in a version history article for a programming language or a framework. .NET Framework version history, Qt version history, the Ruby history, the version table for Python, the Google Chrome version history, the Firefox version history, the iOS version history, the Android version history, the PHP release history, etc..., have exactly the same kind of content (with almost all sources coming directly from the developers of each associated language). IMO if this one was deleted they should all be deleted too. Hervegirod (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only looked at the Qt article (the one I clicked on at random) but looking at only the sources in the article (no before search) I would support deleting that. We need reliable, secondary sources to back up version histories, or else they probably shouldn't be included in the encyclopaedia - but that's not the purpose of this discussion. There's no clear error by the closer here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed by the admin with "Even keep arguments evidence non compliance with NOT and content being OR". I may agree with NOT (at least its part of the discussion), but not with OR (almost all content seemed to be sourced, except it was often primary sources from Oracle). Funnily in the side effect of the article deletion now the Versions chapter in the main Java article has become OR because it previously referenced this article. And I would have been happy to know as a result of this deletion what should be put in a version history article, because for now it is still not clear and policies don't help alt all. I suspect that a lot of the articles which are specifically about versions history for a language or framework have spawned from previous chapters from the main article because there were two many versions, so just saying "it should not be an article, it can only be a chapter in the article of the main language/framework", also won't help. Hervegirod (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the WP:OR may have been a misstatement by the closer, as WP:OR was not referenced in the discussion. That being said, it doesn't change the fact this was a valid close. Furthermore, nothing "becomes" WP:OR - either it's sourced or it's not, and we shouldn't be citing wikipedia anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The close was hasty as it came just 1 minute after another close. In that other discussion, nobody !voted delete but the article was still deleted. This is slapdash deletionism contrary to all our policies and procedures. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn A supervote as there was clearly no consensus to delete. The views of the keep !voters were treated with contempt contrary to WP:DGFA, " respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Clear WP:SUPERVOTE by the XfD closer. I am troubled that the closer did not assess the consensus correctly. Should have been relisted or kept. FYI: last week the same closer had a similar supervote close and gave no explanation... and then quietly reversed the decision when questioned and did not even reply to the editor who questioned the supervote close. I think the closer can do better. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfDs aren't votes and the Keep !votes didn't really present much of a rationale for keeping the article, other than just disagreeing with the nominator. The only arguments in them are that the information is not available easily and that other articles have the same problems, neither which which is very complelling (the latter is listed in WP:AADD). I'd be happy with restoring it as a redirect so it could be very selectively merged somewhere else or possibly rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 06:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This page is the first result when searching for "java version" on Google. I have myself referenced it many times and based on search result rankings, many other people have too. Also the information contained in this article has not been migrated to the main Java article. Outright deletion is a brash decision that does not consider the broader impact. A Wikipedia article does not exist in a vacuum and this deletion has important ramifications. Puckout (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reading #It's_useful/useless, the example given "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." can be applied directly here: "This list brings together changes between and support lifetimes of many Java versions and is useful for navigating that subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puckout (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I see no consensus to delete. Nfitz (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user who deleted the article now has this on his talk page: "I am away. Please do not leave any messages. Feel free to ask another admin your question. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)" (actually added June 19th, not 16th). It does not seem he will be available to resolve this issue in a timely manner. Could another admin please step in? --Puckout (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion will be closed after seven days, if the close is that there's a consensus to restore the page then the closing admin will restore it. Hut 8.5 19:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist: I'm not sure the content was appropriate - I can't really see the page - but my first thought is that this borders on a case of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The closer appears to have misunderstood the keep arguments; they did not claim WP:NOT, they simply claimed the article in its current form was not ideal and could do with some chopping. One clearly specified that the article originally only listed major changes, but as time went on it grew (too much) in size. An article in need of some fixing is absolutely not a good reason to WP:BLOWITUP. Perhaps the overall deletion decision could be correct with reasoning that the delete arguments presented a claim for the article not existing on Wikipedia in any form (citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY), and the keep arguments failed to present a counter-argument, by referencing policy which would support retention of the subject.
- Since I can't see the article it's hard to comment accurately, but I'm not entirely convinced by the WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument. We have lots of such articles (Ubuntu version history, iOS version history, some are formatted well like Firefox version history, some not as well like Google Chrome version history, and some are in the middle Android version history). I do not think such articles are inherently not-notable, and there is an encyclopaedic purpose to retaining them, and should they be well written they are certainly not simply a directory. To support deletion, I think the article would have to be in an awful state and it, and its revision history, should be so messed it's irreparable (
the TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from ). I can't verify this, due to the deletion, but the keep argument suggests this isn't the case.
- I think this should go back to AfD for a more thorough discussion. I see a case for retention or repair, and the consensus was not particularly strong, nor was there a clear case for violation of WP:NOT as the closer says - indeed, per WP:RELEASENOTES, such articles aren't necessarily a violation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You've sort of made more of an AfD argument than a DRV argument there (since the closer is just weighing the discussion), but as someone who endorsed the close, I generally agree on the relist and wouldn't have any problems if the DRV closer were to relist this for a more thorough discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. There was way too little cogent discussion to make this sort of decision on. This wasn't some crappy article about an obscure pokemon character, it was an exceptionally well referenced article about a major subject with over 1700 revisions going back 14 years. Perhaps it doesn't fit our rigid definition of what we want to include in the encyclopedia, but that's not a decision which should be made on a 2-2 tiebreaker. I agree that we need some sort of RFC. A very similar case was Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 17#Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras (and I believe there was a Canon version of that as well). In that case, it was decided to delete, as was here. But, also in that case, there was strong feeling that an RFC was needed to hash out what we want policy to be about these sorts of articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: To be fair, in the Nikon case, the lack of sourcing was a consideration, and that doesn't apply here. This article had hundreds of sources, although some would argue that they were WP:PRIMARY. Still, the common theme is whether we want these sorts of compendia of versions/models/releases/products/etc. That's what the RFC should address. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
