Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract (Java)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIP (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 16 October 2005 (→[[Abstract (Java)]]: closing AfD discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 09:40, 16 October 2005 by JIP (talk | contribs) (→[[Abstract (Java)]]: closing AfD discussion)
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially non-informative article whose information is put forth much better in Abstract class. The only article that links (or rather: linked, I changed that) here was Abstract. The Abstract page lacked link to Abstract class so I replaced the link to Abstract (Java) with that one. As such, this article here has outlived its usfulness. --J-Star 14:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Abstract class. Note that the information in this stub is incorrect. Pburka 15:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why redirect? Nothing links here anyway plus that it's hard to find. The only reason I found it was because I took a peek at the Too Technical-page. The article's name pattern is unique among the category articles so there is no real pattern to be broken. Let's just waste it. --J-Star 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because redirects are cheap and easy and don't clutter up AfD. The number of articles on Afd every day could be reduced if editors are WP:BOLD and redirect articles (where appropriate) instead of listing them here. Pburka 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point... but 1) it's too late for that argument since the page is already on the AfD page ;) 2) it's useless anyway and as such clutters up Wikipedia as a whole. So better to take the pain now and be done with it. --J-Star 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because redirects are cheap and easy and don't clutter up AfD. The number of articles on Afd every day could be reduced if editors are WP:BOLD and redirect articles (where appropriate) instead of listing them here. Pburka 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why redirect? Nothing links here anyway plus that it's hard to find. The only reason I found it was because I took a peek at the Too Technical-page. The article's name pattern is unique among the category articles so there is no real pattern to be broken. Let's just waste it. --J-Star 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirects may be cheap, but this one would be useless. -- Kjkolb 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per J-Star and Kjkolb. Quale 06:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirect. Wikipedia isn't SW tutorial, I hope. Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 12 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.