Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packages in Java


 * 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. I'm not going to include Astrokey44's recommendation, since it is not the right way to think about things, for obvious reasons. DanMS certainly sounds very deletey to me. That gives me 5d-2k, and there's not anything here to suggest a higher-than-usual threshold is needed. -Splash talk 18:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Packages in Java
Not encyclopedic, already in wikibooks. I recomend Delete. brenneman (t) (c) 06:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep How are people going to find it at wikibooks which is a much less used site? Isnt it better to keep things at wikipedia Astrokey44 12:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encycopedia and should contain encycopedia article. Keeping stuff that should be at Wikibooks won't improve their amount of visitors and defeats the purpose of having it. If it's not used enough people should start using Wikibooks instead of looking for information on wikipedia which is covered elsewhere in Wikimedia. See Main Page. -- Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful information; might be extended in WikiBooks and shortened here, but getting rid of it doesn't seem to be the right course. - Andre Engels 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Take out the unencyclopedic facts (the list of packages in the standard library - of interest to nobody but Java developers, who should be looking in the Java library reference manual, not on Wikipedia!), and you have a very short article describing Java's library management system.  Now, Java's library management system may be interesting, but it is not so notable that it needs an article of its very own.  It should be placed in context: either a brief description of it in Java programming language (which is overlong already, but there's a lot of cruft in it that could be edited down to make room), or in a more expansive article that describes its relation to other hierarchal library systems, like the one used in Haskell for example? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Though I think Haeleth makes some good points, it makes me wonder if we should also nominate C_Standard_Library for deletion as well, or keep both. They are parallel topics. Jasmol 23:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT a Java reference manual. --Carnildo 23:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Frankly, I don’t see much use for this in the Wikipedia. This reads like a programmer’s language manual and reference guide. It does not seem likely that anyone would refer to the Wikipedia to learn how to use and program in Java. There are plenty of excellent reference manuals and websites that provide detailed information and instructions on Java programming (and all other languages). &spades;DanMS 01:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's already in wikibooks so you don't even need a transwiki.  Vegaswikian 07:04, 18 November 2005 (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.