Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 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 keep. No consensus to delete, potential merges should be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 1

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

Redundant to Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 1; only it has a bulky infobox too. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can just be redirected. There was a failed proposal to merge the articles (Talk:Internet_Explorer/Archive 5#Proposed Merge), but there's been no improvement in three years so maybe it's unnecessary duplication. Peter James (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or keep separate if the coverage in the IE article is reduced. Peter James (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is internet history your trying to delete. Almost all the early work for the internet, and the subsequent versions, up to Version 6, was created and viewed on this explorer. scope_creep talk 00:05 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The history of internet that you are worried about is here. What we are trying to delete is an unauthorized copy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet Explorer. This is an unnecessary fork of the main article. It seems to serve mostly as a version history, in opposition to WP:CHANGELOG. Deletion is also acceptable, as it seems redundant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Explorer Version was only marketed for mere months, really a footnote in the browser's history the main article covers just fine. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source searches indicate that this article can be significantly expanded. The Internet Explorer article is already at 110 kilobytes and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided". Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Keeping or deleting this article has no impact on IE article. In both case, zero bytes are added or deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's being suggested is a reduction in the amount in the main Internet Explorer article, because of its length. Peter James (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the place of this suggestion is wrong. Internet Explorer article has a lot of potentials for a split; suggesting one that disrupts summary style is too unwise to be even considered. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, source searches indicate that this article can be significantly expanded. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Can be" and "is" are two different things. But consider this: It can be recreated when someone intends to expand. For the time being, reducing redundancy sounds more logical than an expansion that hasn't occured for 13 years. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: IE 1 is definitely notable, and this article can be expanded. @Codename Lisa, merging this article into IE will increase the size of IE article, which is already very long.--Chmarkine (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not nominate a merge. We delete it, no one will miss the redundant contents, and not a byte is added to that article. How's that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very important to the history of the internet. All other versions have their own page too. Kaigew (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Internet Explorer 1 is certainly notable. Your claims of redundancy are pretty invalid on both this and IE11, as the sections on the Internet Explorer are already too large, which is why they all need splitting. Additionally, ~~AfD isn't the venue to propose merges, stop it.~~149.254.250.20 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Explorer. Notability is a non-issue but I guess I agree with Nate. Even if it is notable, still merge/redirect. IE is clearly notable, at what version it started to get notable (certainly before Wikipedia started), needs not be determined, not even sure that version and later should have a separate article, only more coverage in the main one. However I do not oppose any historical sustantial version articles be left alone. comp.arch (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources to justify a separate article. The only issue here is whether we have enough editors to work on this article. Fortunately, we don't have a deadline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. WP:DEADLINE does not mean we should wait forever for a snowball to pass successfully through hell. This is not a nomination for salting. So, if we delete the redundancy, when the community was ready to generate non-redundant contents, old contents can be brought back with a copy and paste from here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: If you think we should delete the redundancy, why couldn't we delete the section in the IE article (i.e. Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 1). Clearly IE 1 contains more information than IE#IE1. Chmarkine (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did consider that idea for a millisecond, determined it is too unwise (actually, wacky), threw it away. I bet it will be reverted by first reviewer to come along. Look, I understand your concern about the size of IE article, which has a lot of potential for a split; but I refrain to take a course of action that is viewed as silly by the community. If your concerns are genuine, please consider joining us in Talk:Internet Explorer. In the meantime, however, I seriously question the rationale behind commenting on that unrelated matter here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (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.