Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java.lang


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

java.lang
Delete. This, and all the other articles concerning the Java standard packages, is merely a list of all included classes. This is already very well documented in Sun's javadoc and is useless. (I don't know of a single developer or layman that will use the page.) In short: It is non-encyclopedic. - ElAmericano | talk 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed --Hooperbloob 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Should probably also add java.lang.ref and java.lang.reflect to this list as well. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed. -Will 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Wikipedia is not a manpage. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all three (java.lang and .ref and .reflect). Maybe setup a redirect to Java, which has links to Sun's site. Cyde Weys  2M-VOTE  05:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight merge all to Packages in Java. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 05:50Z 
 * Comment. Enough overview is included in Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition. We can't really add more without just listing classes. - ElAmericano | talk 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Redirect to Packages in Java or Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 01:49Z 
 * Redirect per Quarl. Stifle 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, WP is not online documentation system. Do the same to .ref and .reflect. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all three articles cited above, or redirect them per Quarl. Important within their topic, but already properly covered, per ElAmericano.  WP:NOT.  Barno 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I doubt it will be possible to give full breadth to the java languge in one article. --TimPope 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Incognito 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all three (java.lang and .ref and .reflect). Note that I have created templates (Template:Javadoc:SE and Template:Javadoc:EE) that create links into the current version of the Java API Javadoc.  The advantage of using these templates instead of pages on Wiki is that the links go to a much richer set of documentation, and when a new version of the Java SE API is released, the URL for the API docs on Wiki is changed in a single place at Template:Javadoc:SE/Home URL.  If these pages are deleted, the current links to these pages should be replaced with:
 * – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, after relooking at it, I think the content in java.lang.ref should be generalized, expanded and merged into the Implementations section in Garbage collection (computer science). Still vote to delete java.lang and java.lang.reflect. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, after relooking at it, I think the content in java.lang.ref should be generalized, expanded and merged into the Implementations section in Garbage collection (computer science). Still vote to delete java.lang and java.lang.reflect. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, after relooking at it, I think the content in java.lang.ref should be generalized, expanded and merged into the Implementations section in Garbage collection (computer science). Still vote to delete java.lang and java.lang.reflect. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doug Bell that the content in java.ref about weak references et al should be merged to Garbage collection, or better yet, Weak reference. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:37Z 


 * 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.