Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2.2.1

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2.2.1

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

~~Wikipedia:Partial title matches. These x.x.x titles could refer to thousands of other things that aren't just model versions. Allweneedisloveandpeace (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Bundling:

Okay, that's fair. I'll second deletion of these. I only created some of these because a few already existed like this. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wouldn't Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion be a better venue for this discussion, since this technically isn't an article? --Geolodus (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geolodus no. MfD is explicitly not for content in mainspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. There's no need to ping me, as I typically watch these pages after voting on them. -Geolodus (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If it can refer to thousands of things that aren't just model versions then it seems like we'd need multiple disambiguation articles offering finer tuned versions. In checking 4.3.1 and 2.2.1 the targets identified both make sense to me. This to me is closer in philosophy to that of a redirect "dabs are cheap" so easy to keep but no huge loss if the occasional one is deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@InternetProtocol127001: just to clarify, you are agreeing to the deletion of these pages, which you created? In that case, speedy delete per author request --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Yes, I am agreeing with the deletion of these pages. However, I did not create all of them, only some of them. Just doing one AfD on all of them would likely be easier than picking individual ones to speedy delete and waiting for AfD on the rest, so I'm just leaving them all as AfD. That way, this discussion can continue in the event that people decide for whatever reason that they don't want to delete these pages. InternetProtocol127001 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. By analogy, if you're looking for information about The Godfather Part II, you don't go to the Part II page (and, in fact, you won't find anything about The Godfather Part II there). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note - I've deleted those created by InternetProtocol127001 as WP:G7, if there is a strong push towards recreation I'm happy to refund. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Ignore me, I didn't see Barkeep's keep statement - I will let the AFD proceed as usual. NODEADLINE and all that. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since the nominator has been blocked as a sock of a banned user, I have stricken their statement. Given that @Primefac has already deleted the pages created by InternetProtocol127001 , I suggest that this be speedy closed without prejudice to renomination of the remaining pages. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been enough valid discussion (including by the creator) that the AFD should run its course. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM and Metropolitan90. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Delete Nom suggests that the x.x.x titles could refer to "thousands of other things", yet these articles run no risk of confusion, as most articles that would link to any version number would instead link to the actual software. These should be the most searched version numbers if they exist on the disambigution page, and if any other version number exists and is relevant, than it could be included on the same page. By wmflabs, the individual version numbers are somewhat frequently searched without a product specification. These pages would serve their purpose to help in these instances.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't believe in the popular argument to delete (too vague and such), it is still a partial title match. I really want these redirects to remain in use, but sadly that isn't how the rules are. I'm going back and forth between my heart and my mind. I'm on the verge of flipping back to keep once one more piece of evidence is given; this is an extremely weak delete. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who would need this disambiguation? Fails WP:PTM. Syndicater (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Syndicater and Barkeep49 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too vague, It can refer to thousands of different things. Why no also include Windows version too (just an analogy). So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not add any of the thousand different things? It is a disambiguation page after all, a page in which the references can be listed and anybody can search through to find what they are looking for. What else could the user be trying to find with 2.2.1? There's a good chance that no matter what answer you give, a user would just search for the product itself. However, if a general version number is trying to be searched for, it would be best to only include the most popular product's version numbers in the disambiguation page. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unlikely that these are just known by their numbers or that anyone would be looking for "which operating system had versions 2.0.1 and 3.2.2". Redirects such as 7.0.2 should also be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone typing these in should expect hundreds of related topics, not a page making the implicit claim that these numbers refer to two types of OS only. And no one is going to fill in and curate these hundreds, and for many many other version numbers to boot. Apart from that, these are plain unlikely search terms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PTM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:37, 26 May 2019 (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.