Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 2012 R2


 * 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   merge to Windows Server 2012. Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I have been asked to expand on my close. The consensus is that CRYSTAL applies. The keep side failed to substantiate sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article but the argument that this will be undoubtedly be notable has real merit. This dichotomy is reflected in the merge votes that recognise that there will be an article here in due cource. The common practise in these cases is to merge back into the main article and spin out the article again when there is sufficient reliable sources to create a substantial article. On this basis the merge votes appear to offer the best outcome between PRESERVE and CRYSTAL and also fit wider project consensus. I also have much less weight to keep votes that do not cite policy. So we don't ignore N based on a single primary source, as both N/GNG require multiple reliable sources to merit a standalone article. We also don't create article on the basis that other products have articles and we also accept that multiple reliable sources can be based on a single press release, which is why we are cautious about this kind of thing. ChrisGuiltari had the best keep argument but the points he made gained little traction from subsequent reviewers so I am, to a degree bound by the policy based votes that follow on. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Windows Server 2012 R2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contains no verifiable information, and virtually no valid information whatsoever. The infobox is entirely pure conjecture. (Please note that "conjecture" is not even original research

Most of the information is now verifiable and more will be formally verified soon. Please don't go all hair trigger - this release IS coming and the features mentioned DO exist. Full discaosure will not be available till end June 2013.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please refer to the website on Windows Server 2012 R2 infobox: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/windows-server-2012-r2.aspx
 * The original source of new version unveiling was an email that we received as Gold Partner of Microsoft. IMHO there should be information on Wikipedia, that there will be a new version of Windows Server called 2012 R2 (not 2013/2014 or whatsoever). Infobox contains information valid ATM and could be precised after RTM is here.
 * Jvilimek (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The website does not confirm any of the infobox contents: It mentions neither x64 nor IA-64, nothing about licensing scheme, cost, update mechanism and most importantly kernel type, which might change. Even if it had, WP:CRYSTAL issue remains. By the way, it'd be great if you stick to AfD formatting here. Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa. OK, I get your message. Would it be fine, if I/we remove above mentioned lines (architecture, licensing scheme, cost, kernel type...)? I agree, that IA-64 architecture could not be confirmed. However IMHO this article should be created, because in the near future it will be created anyway;) If the product announced would be let say MyGreatApplication 6.8 by some unknown company, this would be different. But its an OS used on 1/3 of all servers for God's sake ;) But whatever, I just tried to be helpful... Jvilimek (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Jvilimek. I understand your feeling and I respect your opinion. Let's see what the rest of community thinks. But please allow me to give you a piece of advice: Writing an encyclopedia needs patience. Wait for the facts to surface, then wait until secondary sources comment on them; only then proceed to write an article about them. IMHO, we will eventually have a Windows Server 2012 R2 article but you acted to soon to start it. E.g. we don't know yet if the rumors are true and it is going to have cloud kernel or it will just update the venerable hybrid kernel. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "facts" have already "surface[d]" - did you read the references I added? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. I also said "...then wait unit secondary sources comment on them", then again I added an example of what we still don't know. I also said "you acted to soon to start it". Finally, you seem to have completely disregarded Notability and CRYSTAL. (See ANTECEDENT.) Frankly, my friend, pulling a sentence out of its context and commenting on it is purely a waste of efforts on your part.  Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not relevant here at all as it is automatically satisfied as implied above. WP:CRYSTAL is satisfied by the references in question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Did I read that right? You just said notability is satisfied by one single primary source! Wow! I am going to assume you were trying to cheer us up by cracking a joke. But in case you meant it literally, I am afraid you should seriously consider being much more careful about the accuracy of what you write. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you did not read that right. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: an official source exists, and with a significant amount of information at that. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong bullshit! Do us all a favor and actually click on the link before barging in here. And by the way, when did Wikipedia became Microsoft's announcement machine? The article is basically a one line announcement: "It was unveiled on 06/04/2013. The release date is currently unknown." which is untrue because the source says "get notified when it is unveiled." WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:V are all forgotten here. Fleet Command (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you only looked at the single page - and not even the entirety of that - instead of looking at the entire website. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong language: Hello guys. I am sure the same message can be communicated with a more appropriate choice of language register. It is easy: Dogmaticeclectic says there is a source and FleetCommand says no only that source does not verify the contents of the article but the article also does not comply with WP:NOTADVERT, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Notability issue can be fixed over time, but only if the article passes "crystal ball" threshold. Not every verifiable or notable thing merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Microsoft has a good track record for this, and while it is pushing the TOOSOON limits the page creation is all but ensured. It has already seen coverage in a host of websites like PCWORLD and The Register. Russia's CyberSecurity has some additional points. In Japan as well. It already seems to meet GNG, its just a bit early. I see no real reason to wipe it out less than a week after its announcement which garnered international coverage. We will just be recreating it in another week or two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ï¿½ (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you and anyone else stating this elaborate as to why you think WP:CRYSTAL applies here given the preceding discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Windows Server 2012, because this is a pretty minor update - it's much more like Windows Server 2003 R2 than Windows Server 2008 R2 in this sense. The client version, 8.1, is also a minor update.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to sound hypocritical, but this is definitely an action that I think would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The information is not speculative, as there is now an official source, as you said. There are also multiple 3rd-party independent reliable sources for most of the information in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant that you are attempting to determine the importance of the update before it has even been finalized - not to mention released. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The new feature lists I've been seeing justify it. We can always split it back out later if we find it to be like Windows Server 2008 R2 rather than Windows Server 2003 R2.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also do something easier: simply keep it as is until the update is at least finalized to be able to make a more informed decision on this issue. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I also know Microsoft doesn't make major changes to the features list once it's reached this stage, so it's not that likely that my conclusion will change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Server_2012_R2&diff=559553507&oldid=559550596 This diff] is very concerning. It shows how speculative some of the contents in the article is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current information in the infobox is simply taken from the Windows Server 2012 one for the most part. While I agree that the information should be sourced here too, I disagree with simply removing it right now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Winserver 2008 has a seperate page for its R2, and this was a very well publicized announcement, which many businesses will be using when it comes out. I'd say that deleting it would be absolutely pointless, as it will get an article when it comes out, and I'll put money on that. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But Windows Server 2003 R2 does not, and it was used almost equally widely. See my comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. I agree with Jasper. other stuff exists is not a good reason in deletion discussions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: There are a number of reliable references already available, detailing a laundry list of features. There will surely be a huge number more in about ten days, when Microsoft releases more information at the Build conference (the article's current references state that this will be the case; so it is not conjecture). As the article stands now, it is not very speculative and is far shorter than it could be given the references I've added. In any case, it seems somewhat pointless to delete the article now when it's extremely likely that it will just be recreated in a week; it's better to spend the intervening time cleaning up the article so that it is of higher quality and easier to edit once more information is available. -- Lewellyn talk 05:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. These websites are not "secondary sources independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG) because they simply repeat Microsoft. So, no, that does not establish notability. And and  both show that a large part of the article is indeed speculative because there are not enough sources to support either of the diffs. Dogmaticeclectic has so far vehemently denied this but again he has not provided sources to prove otherwise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Windows Server 2012. Let's analyse this for a second. Claiming that this will definitely be notable now is a violation of CRYSTAL. Stating that it will definitely be significantly independent of the original version is a violation of CRYSTAL. Stating that it should be kept in a standalone article because of Windows Server 2008 R2 is a violation of WP:OSE. However, it is confirmed, so, at least for now, it should have a place in the main WS2012 article. This will negate any need for original research or speculative content (note: I'm not saying those should be happening) whilst still being encyclopedic. If it turns out that 2012 R2 is significantly independent, then we can always split it out later. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (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.