Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java EE version history

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. Not suitable for Wikipedia, but I'm happy to email copies to anyone who wants to put it somewhere else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Java EE version history

[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)

Non-notable piece of software that is serving as a change log in violation of WP:NOT. Should be redirected to Java Platform, Enterprise Edition as an WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Begoon 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Java EE is not software. It's a specification, designed by a joint committee of independent industry leaders, and implemented by dozens of vendors (IBM, RedHat, Apache, and Oracle to name a few). Its evolution is keenly monitored by those in the industry, and as such, secondary and tertiary sources over its historical evolution and future direction are widely available. The quality of this article can be improved by these sources and I would welcome those changes, but anyone involved in this technology would disagree that the historical course of Java EE is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 9 May 2019, 14:53 (UTC)
The IP left further comments about why this should be kept at my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:IINFO. --MrClog (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty exemplary use of WP as a README.txt dump. This kind of material is collated and provided by the developer; we shouldn't mirror this level of detail. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "piece of software", "developer"... it isnt what you guys think it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.234.5 (talk • contribs) 21:04, May 9, 2019 (UTC)
Then tell what it is and why it should be kept, please. --MrClog (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the onus is to show why it should be deleted, and 3 votes to delete (Barkeep49, Elmidae, Begoon) are basing their vote on the notion that it's software. it's not. it's an evolving specification. documents.

I admit my phrasing was imprecise. However the lack of notability and concerns aboutthe current content of the article running afoul of WP:NOT, remain regardless of what we call this. Notability is not inherited either so if it had the sustained importance that DJM asserts I'd expect more coverage such to demonstrate GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a new version comes out there's discussion of the new/changed features/capabilities such as in [1]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep: It's a Specification under Sun stewardship and then Oracle you now seem to have handed the stewardship over. Got a lot of WP:SUSTAIN ... over 20 years. To an extent this is a subpage of Java Platform, Enterprise Edition but too much WP:UNDUE there. Article could do with improvements and but the prose is quite good. This is a sort of spec J2EE webservers such as Tomcat, JBoss EAP, weblogic, Wildfly, Websphere etc work to. Not massively my scene.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC) On second thoughts its not Microsoft so destroy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki Useful verifiable information, and I would second the opinion expressed by the IP that this is anything but an incremental list of versions. The nom seems very poorly written in first assuming it's a software, then describing it as a changelog. Lacking WP:BEFORE. Samsara 18:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above I did agree that software was the wrong word to have used but I can tell you that I did perform a full BEFORE prior to nominating this for deletion. I stand by my WP:NOT issues with the content of the page regardless of what term we want to attach to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- see WP:ITSUSEFUL - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you throw essays at people (meaningless, really, since they're ESSAYS), you should check that you've understood the argument the person is making. Samsara 13:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a version history belongs on a website, not in a Wikipedia article WP:NOT - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:GNG, lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - oddly, the article does not state in the lead what Java EE is or does - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Elmidae said it best: Wikipedia is not a README.TXT dump. Reyk _YO! 12:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT a data dump. On the other hand, this certainly looks useful, so if somebody wants to repurpose the text (perhaps there's another wiki that has different inclusion guidelines than we do), userfy it for them, so they can do what they want with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 17 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.