Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.NET Framework 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 keep. Clear consensus here for the article to be retained, with various rationales presented for its retention, some of which are stronger than others. The alternative to deletion of merging has also been presented in some commentary. Furthermore, nobody is opining for deletion except the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Framework version history[edit]

[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)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Fails WP:LISTN. A very tiny part of the sources are independent, and those verify only one or two versions. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't see a good enough reason to delete this, it's a decent resource article on wiki. I think the nominator would need to explain further his thoughts for this AfD. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While each AfD stands on its own merits given the comment per Govvy and therefore high risk of WP:BEFORE and given other AfD's, prods, and speedys raised by nom at a similar time with insufficient thought to merges this risks more chance of good faith (albeit a mix of good, bad and ugly) simply being binned. If there is a run of good 'delete' or 'merge' suggestions I'm open to review this comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to merge something covered by WP:NOT if it is not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard for Wikipedia articles on major software components to have information on version histories. Sometimes these are in the articles themselves such as at Linux kernel. Since articles can become large they are more often done in Wikipedia:Summary style with major subtopics in their own articles. Version histories can be such child articles as seen at Category:Software version histories. These child articles do have to meet notability requirements in their own right. Though this article currently relies on Microsoft sources, .Net Framework releases are covered in independent software publications as a quick google search shows: Microsoft Releases .NET Framework 4.7.2. Not to mention the negative magazine coverage that comes up when Microsoft breaks something and has to retract an update. There is a lot of independent coverage of these versions due to issues raised in the business community that could be added to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:SPINOUT, and per other comments. Widefox; talk 14:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPINOUT doesn't apply as the parent article has only twenty thousand characters of prose. wumbolo ^^^ 17:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it's already been split. I don't think our counting methodologies are the same - see List of .NET libraries and frameworks, this, the main one and any others hanging around. My point being the topic is notable (rated high and top), so merge rather than deletion would be prudent (not that I see any consensus or reason for that). Widefox; talk 18:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. The nom fails to make any case per WP:DISCUSSAFD When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Widefox; talk 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCHANGELOG actually says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Since no one has provided these independent sources, I wonder what your arguments are based on. wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That answer didn't address the question that the nom fails DISCUSSAFD as quoted. It's not clear from the nom why it should be deleted, but presumably the notability of the topic .NET Framework isn't questioned? No? In which case see WP:Viability of lists While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable... . The nom doesn't address that this is a notable topic, rated high and top. Widefox; talk 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have to address some random essay?! wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I won't ask about the nom failing DISCUSSAFD again. Widefox; talk 14:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:Viability of lists; I didn't notice that DISCUSSAFD is an essay. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

to closer Look again at the comments of several editors here questioning the basis of the nom, which has not been addressed despite explicitly asking and quoting why it fails per DISCUSSAFD. Separately, other participants and the closer can come to their own decision based on the basis of !votes in essays, guidelines, policies. Widefox; talk 22:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All keep votes are almost worthless, and almost all keep votes aren't based in anything at all. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your nom isn't convincing folk, and despite being asked to reason it to bring it up to a reasonable standard but don't, then it may be worth reflecting on that. Widefox; talk 11:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful article. Better lean toward keeping good info rather than bureaucratic sticklerness. Sadly all too often the latter is chosen. If List of Pokémon and the articles it links to are okay, surely .NET history is fine too. ¤ ehudshapira 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful content and it elaborates on .NET Framework#History in appropriate detail. An alternative would be to merge it back in to .NET Framework but that would make its history section way too detailed. --Frank Geerlings (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just a sub-article of .NET Framework. The parent article is notable, so I'd say sub-articles inherit the notability of the parent. SJK (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SJK: sub-articles don't inherit the notability of the parent, see WP:NOTINHERITED. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: WP:NOTINHERITED is says that a person being notable doesn't make their child or spouse or parents automatically notable. i.e. one person/thing being notable doesn't automatically make a separate but related person/thing notable. But that is not what I mean by "sub-article". I mean an inseparable aspect of the article topic, which might be treated in more detail in a sub-article, but which is not something which can have an independent but related existence. (The version history of a software has no separate or independent existence from the software itself; unlike relatives, who have independent lifespans, and can do very different things in their respective lives; for that reason, relatives have a need for separate evidence of notability which a software version history sub-article doesn't.) So I don't believe WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable to this case. SJK (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SJK: so List of Google Search logos is a valid article topic just because it is a sub-topic of Google Search? Furthermore, changelogs are explicitly excluded from your logic because they are listed on WP:NOTCHANGELOG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: As far as your hypothetical "List of Google Search logos" article goes, I don't see the problem with such an article, if someone feels motivated to create it. Changes in the Google Search logo not infrequently get some media attention, so I think there would likely be sufficient WP:RS to sustain such an article. Also, "WP:NOTCHANGELOG" is not an absolute prohibition on software version history, it is a prohibition on excessive detail. I think the appropriate level of detail is that found in reliable sources that are independent of the vendor. For a very popular software product like .NET, there are going to be many independent reliable sources talking about its new releases and the new features they introduce, so the level of detail this article represents is justifiable. Less popular software products, there is unlikely to be any reliable independent coverage of the version history, so it is going to be harder to justify such an article. Now, the article as it currently stands relies almost entirely on non-independent sources, but a cursory search of Google News and Books will establish there are lots of independent sources for this kind of information for .NET which can be used – and all that counts for WP:AFD is that usable sources exist, even if the article in its current state doesn't cite any of them. SJK (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to controversies on a set of articles of which this is one can I respectively suggest admins only close this and a full 168 hours is allowed before relist and non-admins carefully consider before re-listing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2018 (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.