Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of .NET Framework versions


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

List of .NET Framework versions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG because it entirely consists of a list of releases and dates, irrelevant of their significance and due weight. A shorter policy-compliant list is already available in the main article. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why can't this be redirected to the list in the main article? Why can't this be transwikied to wikidata or wikiversity? James500 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly can. "Redirect" is a slightly different form of "Delete", whereby a redirect is left behind after deletion. It can also be transwikied; but not to Wikidata or Wikiversity. (Wikidata's nature does not support this anyway.) However, if you mean merged instead of redirected, no, thanks to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Forcing readers to read such a list is cruel anyway. (I still have occasional nightmares about those stupid tables we have to memorize in school, only to forget them after the exam.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant exactly what I said. If I had meant to use the word "merge", I would have done so. Wikiversity will accept almost anything that is outside the scope of the other projects. In what way would this conflict with Wikiversity's content policies? James500 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, great. I love people who are careful about choosing their words. { I wish there were more people like. The majority of people so far care-freely used "redirect" to mean "merge and redirect" and "notability" to mean "fame", "due weight" or lots of other thing. I certainly didn't say meant policy conflict; only Software Wiki seems a more appropriate target and Wikiversity like the least suitable target. (Refer to the nightmare part of my last message.) But please, suit yourself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Software Wiki is not a WMF project, so we will not send the content there. As far as transwiki is concerned, Wikiversity is probably the only candidate. Redirection is not normally preceded by page deletion. The content would be preserved in the page history because NOTCHANGELOG isn't a grounds for revision deletion. The reason for this is probably that we don't like to delete information that we might conceivably want to use later (WP:R and WP:PRESERVE). The mere existence of a list doesn't force anyone to read it and cruelty to readers isn't a grounds for deletion or anything else. James500 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Summary in .NET_Framework appears adequate and in line with WP:NOTCHANGELOG guidance. This more detailed coverage is problematic. Maybe some of the refs can be used in .NET_Framework but a full merge is not really appropriate. ~KvnG 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete This article is a clear example of a changelog and worse, is redundant with a lot of the information already presented in .NET Framework version history. I don't see much of value to merge into .NET Framework version history, maybe some refs? In principle a redirect is fine, but I don't think List of .NET Framework versions is a particularly likely search term. --Mark viking (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.