Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ubuntu releases

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 speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ubuntu releases

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

This article needs to be split up into separate articles! Windows and Mac OS Pages do it! - Ubuntu061896 (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete it!~~ This confuses users and doesn't give a large amount of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuntu061896 (talk • contribs)
Struck possible double !vote by nominator. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not a valid reason for deletion Chzz ► 05:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is neither Windows nor Mac OS. The releases come closer together. Ubuntu releases every six months while Windows and Mac OS release when they're ready, usually every two years. The articles for the individual commercial releases have a lot of content while the Ubuntu releases only have a paragraph or two for each release and would make articles that are too short. Recent releases are slightly longer though, but are still too short. Keep. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article as it is now isn't overly long. Most of the versions listed aren't in need of their own articles. ScottSteiner ✍ 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a fine article, and one that provides sufficient information about the release schedule. I would propose that the article in its entiret be kept.Rajpaj (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article is conveying information inefficiently and confusingly.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the nominator; your nomination is your !vote. Please do not double !vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If an article is "inefficient" and "confusing," that is cause for somebody to step in and edit it to make it better. Go for it! Carrite (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least Make the article be named ubuntu releases and remove future releases.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a discusison about the potential for deleting the article, not for a move. If you want to discuss a move, please do that in the appropriate location. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no legitimate rationale for deletion given. If the nominator wants to split up the article, what's the usefulness in deleting it first? This appears to be a content presentation issue that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, not a rationale to bring this to AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced, nicely organized and not overly long. We can consider splitting in the future if need be, though I can see pulling most of the screen shots at some point. Seaphoto^Talk 06:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First a desire to split an article does not justify deleting it, if it were to be split than it should be split, not deleted. Second, it does not need splitting into individual release articles. Most are just one paragraph long, too short for a stand alone article each and, because most are old releases that are no longer supported or in use, it is unlikely that they will grow in size. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It's too long!" is a reason to improve it, not delete it. --Falcorian ^(talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason for deletion given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is most important that one can get an overview of the development from release to release. The Ubuntu work method is continuous work, not separate entities. Windows Vista is vastly different from XP, for example, but two Ubuntu releases following each other with only half a year in between are mostly similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.187.88 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Improper deletion rationale. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No good reason to delete this useful article. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close nominator is not making a deletion request {{split}} is a different process. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (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.