Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows library files

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows library files

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

removed PROD, relist at AfD, since I thought it deserved an AfD 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROD reasoning:

“

Discussion of Windows Library files one-by-one is futile; There are so many dll files around and information stored here is rapidly rendered obsolete. Also, "Library Files" are not only DLL nowadays, article title may be misleading and could provide the new user with false and/or obsolete information. Michael (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

Transwiki to WikiBooks, a book on the internal components of Windows, since it looks like material that is more appropriately hosted on a Wikibook or used at Wikiversity. The information contained in the article is more like what is found in a programming book or a system support textbook. It currently contains no statements of notability, and in my opinion close to violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I would not oppose a delete outcome, since this article just gives me grief, and I have no desire for further involvement. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This AfD ignores, and is disruptive to, work currently being done on the article - please see the talk page and the recent edit history.

Failing that... the reasons given in the PROD were incorrect as follows:

"Discussion of Windows Library files one-by-one is futile; There are so many dll files around" Yes, there are many, but just because a job can't be done completely doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted at all, particularly for the most important. An explanation of the key API DLLs is helpful to people trying to understand the OS.

"and information stored here is rapidly rendered obsolete." No, just about everything there applies to everything from Windows NT 3.1 through Windows Vista. For Win 7 the actual implementations of many of the APIs have been moved, but these DLLs and all of their entry points are still there.

"Also, "Library Files" are not only DLL nowadays, article title may be misleading and could provide the new user with false and/or obsolete information." So, that can be fixed with a sentence or two indicating that .cpl, .scr, and a few other file types are really the same as thing under other names. Speaking of that, many of those do not need a section per file, they can be described en masse. No need to enumerate every one, which further erodes the PRODder's first claim.

And the reasons given for the AfD are also incorrect:

"The information contained in the article is more like what is found in a programming book..." Perhaps as incidental information, but a developer doesn't really need to know these things; you just call an API and the linker figures out where it comes from.

"...or a system support textbook." It is true that this information is valuable for system support, but there is nothing here about "what to do if it's broken." Nor does it meet the description given in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK for textbook-like material. As for the information that is here, it is of the same nature as that in Architecture of Windows NT and in Linux architecture. This article simply provides more details on one aspect of the former. For comparison, the article on Internal combustion engine similarly describes how an engine works, and while there is information there that might also be in a repair manual, one would not accuse that article of being a repair manual, nor instructive of how to drive a car.

"It currently contains no statements of notability,..." Well, that can be fixed very easily, since Windows' internal details in this area are notable. Though perhaps not to someone outside the field. I'm rather inside the field, so perhaps I missed the need for statements of notability. But I can certainly do some work to that end.

"...and in my opinion close to violating WP:NOTTEXTBOOK." I don't see how. The "textbook" section of that says: "articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." Windows library files has nothing like that.

"this article just gives me grief..." Ok, I admit - this one I have no answer for. I'll have to hope that "just gives me grief" will not be taken as a logical, fact-based, WP-policy-based, and compelling argument by the closing administrator.

I'm trying to improve it. Please note that this is not simply an "I'll work on it" promise, I have already done so. My first step (merging the redundant kernel32.dll article) is done, second step (same for user32.dll) is in process awaiting comments. Not much has happened yet because this just started recently and each of those steps does require waiting for responses to proposals. It would be one thing if the article had not been worked on at all (as it had not been for a long time) but to have to deal with a PROD and then an AfD right after start of work is more than a little discouraging. I've had to spend half an hour or so composing this response - time that would have been better spent on the article.

I do see a few clear ideas for improvement based on the criticisms in the AfD, particularly in the area of establishing notability. However I wish the proposer had simply stated those on the talk page... particularly since the article history and talk page make apparent that someone is taking active interest in improving the article. Jeh (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, at least as an interim. Whatever issues the current version has, the subject seems like it would support an article. I am wondering what the difference would be between this subject and dynamic link library, or what articles we have on the Windows standard DLLs, but I'll leave the organization of that material to experts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Difference is that DLL describes the concept and mechanism of DLLs, while WLF describes the function and organization of some important DLLs that are part of Windows architecture. All of these are DLLs, but not all DLLs are WLFs. This distinction could be made better in both articles. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to go to AFD if you wish to propose a Transwiki, or a merge with other articles (as Smerdis suggests). On the merits, I concur that the subject works as an article, or as a component of a merged article later on. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:34, 23 February 2010 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.