Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.NET Framework version history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wumbolo (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 23 September 2018 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
.NET Framework version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Fails WP:LISTN. A very tiny part of the sources are independent, and those verify only one or two versions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't see a good enough reason to delete this, it's a decent resource article on wiki. I think the nominator would need to explain further his thoughts for this AfD. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While each AfD stands on its own merits given the comment per Govvy and therefore high risk of WP:BEFORE and given other AfD's, prods, and speedys raised by nom at a similar time with insufficient thought to merges this risks more chance of good faith (albeit a mix of good, bad and ugly) simply being binned. If there is a run of good 'delete' or 'merge' suggestions I'm open to review this comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to merge something covered by WP:NOT if it is not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is standard for Wikipedia articles on major software components to have information on version histories. Sometimes these are in the articles themselves such as at Linux kernel. Since articles can become large they are more often done in Wikipedia:Summary style with major subtopics in their own articles. Version histories can be such child articles as seen at Category:Software version histories. These child articles do have to meet notability requirements in their own right. Though this article currently relies on Microsoft sources, .Net Framework releases are covered in independent software publications as a quick google search shows: Microsoft Releases .NET Framework 4.7.2. Not to mention the negative magazine coverage that comes up when Microsoft breaks something and has to retract an update. There is a lot of independent coverage of these versions due to issues raised in the business community that could be added to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, it's already been split. I don't think our counting methodologies are the same - see List of .NET libraries and frameworks, this, the main one and any others hanging around. My point being the topic is notable (rated high and top), so merge rather than deletion would be prudent (not that I see any consensus or reason for that). Widefox; talk 18:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. The nom fails to make any case per WP:DISCUSSAFD When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Widefox; talk 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Since no one has provided these independent sources, I wonder what your arguments are based on. wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That answer didn't address the question that the nom fails DISCUSSAFD as quoted. It's not clear from the nom why it should be deleted, but presumably the notability of the topic .NET Framework isn't questioned? No? In which case see WP:Viability of lists While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable... . The nom doesn't address that this is a notable topic, rated high and top. Widefox; talk 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I have to address some random essay?! wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't ask about the nom failing DISCUSSAFD again. Widefox; talk 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:Viability of lists; I didn't notice that DISCUSSAFD is an essay. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
to closer Look again at the comments of several editors here questioning the basis of the nom, which has not been addressed despite explicitly asking and quoting why it fails per DISCUSSAFD. Separately, other participants and the closer can come to their own decision based on the basis of !votes in essays, guidelines, policies. Widefox; talk 22:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. All keep votes are almost worthless, and almost all keep votes aren't based in anything at all. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If your nom isn't convincing folk, and despite being asked to reason it to bring it up to a reasonable standard but don't, then it may be worth reflecting on that. Widefox; talk 11:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]