Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAR hell

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 as rewritten under Java Classloader —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-10 21:26Z

JAR hell

Prodded twice, once due to context and the other due to being a non-notable, somewhat unencyclopedic and unreferenced. Crufty. MER-C 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been completely rewritten (and retitled) by Petri Krohn since the debate started. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a neologism, and somewhat based on Dependency hell. --Dennisthe2 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems a very localised term, as MER-C said; "Crufty". James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much seems like non-notable neologism and cruft.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as neologism. --S onicChao ^talk 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ---Green-Dragon 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article was poorly written and needs copy-edit (I did some) and wikifing. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with it. Java is a new concept, so anything related to it can be labeled a neologism. The problem presented is real and the article factual. In fact I received a US patent for a solution to the problem some 5 or 6 years ago. It could in fact be used as one of the references. (I must put a link to the patent on my user page if I can find it :-) Anyway, please check the article again, it looks much better now. -- Petri Krohn 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In theory this material could be merged to some other article. We are however still missing such basic Java articles as Java class and classloader. --Petri Krohn 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PP.S. I did some more editing: I wikilinked the some ten instances of Classloader and Class loader in Wikipedia, and redirected them to JAR hell. I know that JAR hell is not the same as a class loader, but it is a feature of class loaders. If JAR hell did not deserve its own article, it could be integrated to Classloader. (Or the present article could be expanded and renamed "Classloader".) -- Petri Krohn 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPP.S. We also have an article on DLL hell. --Petri Krohn 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ...and Extension conflict --Petri Krohn 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if able to be verified and wikiifed per above point Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Are we going to have an article for every programming language about this sort of problem? This concept should be a subsection of Dependency hell, as per Dennisthe2, or something similar. DLL hell probably should be rolled into that main article, too; it actually has fewer Google hits than JAR hell. What worries me the most is that all the keep votes came after a plea by a decidedly biased editor (who has a personal, emotional stake in the notability of the topic). Wikilinks don't make it notable -- and may just make a bigger mess to clean up. If Classloader deserves an article, by all means, contribute one. -- PatrickFisher 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"dll hell" 258,00 hits. "jar hell" 945 hits. I think this shoul be deleted, but DLL hell I think might be popular enough for it's own article. Mrjeff 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NEO, cruft. Ter e nc e Ong 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into another article, I don't believe there is anything special about "JAR hell" over any other classpath issues (which can be quite annoying). Mrjeff 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is both a neologism and OR. Obina 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly as WP:OR. AubreyEllenShomo 21:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect any verifiable info to dependency hell --Karnesky 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Classloader - I was bold, and rewrote and moved the article. There was not much that could go to the generic dependency hell article. More important, there was no Classloader article and most of the material was relevant there. -- Petri Krohn 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewritten form is much better and isn't deletable at all. MER-C 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in rewritten form; much better, thank you. Java classloader is clearly a notable topic to be discussed in Wikipedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but rewrite to higher quality. If you are going to delete this, delete "DLL Hell" too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.110.42 (talk • contribs).
- Comment - if you think it should be deleted, log in and put it on AFD. Just don't do so to prove a point - people around here don't much like that. --Dennisthe2 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not too bad now, willing to give it some time -- Steve Hart 11:44, 10 December 2006 (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.