Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Join Java (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to Join-pattern. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join Java

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Join-pattern: where it is already mentioned, and won't require sourcing beyond what we now have. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. As it stands this article appears to violate WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTMANUAL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (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.