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 No consensus (SNOW/NAC). There is no consensus in favor of deletion; however, the majority of participants also failed to settle on a consistent or valid reason to keep the article. Most people here simply can't imagine a world without an article titled "Internet Explorer 11"; this resembles classical conditioning or emotional insecurity but not a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer 11[edit]

Internet Explorer 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 11. This article is mainly composed of a lead, a "release history" section that repeats the lead (and very colorfully so) and an infobox that repeats the lead and history section again. There is also a User Agent section that is WP:IINFO. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and extend article. Internet Explorer 11 is notable enough for a lone article just like the other IE versions, but you're right about it lacking in content. 149.254.250.187 (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand article? Surviving cancer is easier. Expand what? This is a minor update; only instead of 10.1 they called it 11. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IE11 is a big deal in the web design world, and the web design world is big. There is already more info in the article than in the section. Thue (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More in the article than IE11 section of IE article? Check again, might want to change your vote.. comp.arch (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All of the first 10 IE versions have articles; why can't this version have an article?? However, I would have voted to delete an article on Internet Explorer 12 if one is created before a good amount of information is known about it. Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was also my first reaction, however the IE article is synonymous with IE11, so I think duplication is not justified for the current version and this needs not be symmetric for all versions. Could argue maybe that all the version articles could go, I say use a redirect if they do not have lots of historically important material that you don't want to clutter the main one with. The redirect is optional though, but not for the most recent version. None of the version articles should be deleted outright, all major versions numbers deserve at least a redirect. comp.arch (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable version of a Windows component. IE10 and IE9 are more notable, but this is a relatively minor version that, beyond the glitch it had with Google, is otherwise non-notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Microsoft is moving to a fast release policy, then it makes sense to treat IE11 like we do, say Firefox or Chrome. The days of multi-year releases of IE appear to be behind us. 87Fan (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep All other versions have independant articles. However starting with ver. 9, IE has moved closer to standards compliance. Eventually, newer IE versions could probably be treated like Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Until that process has started, independant articles have been the standard. 192.209.53.20 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All versions have independent articles. Sources are solid for this article and notability established. Basileias (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Internet Explorer. This article seems to mostly serve as a version history, in opposition to WP:CHANGELOG. As a redundant and unnecessary fork, deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:N. The Internet Explorer article is already at 110 kilobytes and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided". Also, the Internet Explorer 11 article has a significant amount of content that's not present in the Internet Explorer article; a merge is not the best option, in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. It is 11 KB (11,290 bytes), not 110 KB. And besides, by deleting the redundant parts, it is cut down to one third. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. Keeping or deleting this article has no impact on the size of Internet Explorer article. If you are concerned about its size, this is not the correct venue to discuss it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (see my comment(s) below for what I mean..) Merge, Delete, Weak Merge, that is, with a caviat/question. Not my first vote, but first one on deletion. I know this article will not be gone forever, however I think it's not accessible to me. There seems to be useful information here that has not been merged and my vote is conditional on that it's really will be merged. The merging is not automatic. I'm really voting on deleting or not. Not sure Weak is official, either you do it or not. comp.arch (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote after copying all relevant (I think) info to the IE article. This article can always be restored later if IE11 section in main one gets massive? comp.arch (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed again to make clear that I to not want Internet Explorer 11 (as an outside URL, IE11 as IE is noteable) gone only its content and that it be replaced by a redirect to Internet_Explorer#Internet_Explorer_11. comp.arch (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning the process. I thought of putting in a "merge to" template concurrently with this process but I've already merged all that I think is worth merging (just now, can someone review the Infobox, eg. version number) AND not sure putting another template in is following protocol. Redirect NOT "Delete then Redirect" is what I want, see: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. comp.arch (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFD invalid claims, all other versions has articles and it's new, perhaps the article needs more time to mature. But your reason is invalid, it hasn't had time to develop into a proper article. Not a reason to delete. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IE7 to 8 was minor as well but they stil have seperate articles. Plus, IE 11's developers tools changed.ElectroPro (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then IE8 might go next? Development tools not a good argument. Already copied that info (and all other relevant info) to main article. Besides most users will not use the development tools the IE (and IE11) article points to a separate article on the tools that might be more relevant in tracking these tools. The main article should describe the most up-to-date version in my view and duplication is not good (might be refactored into an IE11 later (when not current). comp.arch (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep secondary sources meet GNG. Summary style Internet Explorer, may (or may not) grow to be more useful than currently. Widefox; talk 23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above. Also I disagree that IE 11 is a minor update. No reliable sources say IE 11 is just IE 10.1. Chmarkine (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not yet fast release. -download ׀ talk 08:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep IE's release cycle is extremely slow in comparison to Firefox and Chrome; however, IE's notoriety is waning. Kaigew (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep One page for IE should be good with releases listed there. There should not be individual pages for each release. Joe R (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article topic clearly meets WP:GNG and the OP does not dispute this. The nom seems to be based on OP's opinion of the article's quality which is not a valid reason for deletion. If such issues exist, they can be addressed through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we saying IE11 is not notable by deleting? It can always be restored? IE in general is notable and as for all notable software, especially the latest version, unless IE is getting irrelevant. Doesn't mean each version should have its own page? It will turn into a redirect right? With time we will see if any one version is so notable that they need a separate page, maybe the IE6 (first version?) comp.arch (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm saying is that there needs to be a valid reason for deletion. The OP doesn't provide a valid reason. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. Let me give you an example: Suppose you have a rope. You can hang yourself. But must you? (I say not.) Notability is like that. We can create a separate article. But must we? What's the point of saying "IE was released on 17 October 2013" five times?
  • Notability is NOT an issue whether to get rid of content in this article. Internet Explorer should describe the most recent version as well as it can. Think of it this way. Let's say there was only the first version of anything, IE or say your favorite actress, and she changes hairstyle, minor upgrade - maybe not notable. Now if see gets a major upgrade - a boobjob (or reverse see Angelina Jolie) - might be notable. Notability only controls whether we write about it (and start an article if concept not in Wikipedia already), we will not make a new article for the actress. Heck, people have had their changed sex and still have the same article (with a changed name). comp.arch (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TheLoneTraveller (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As versions come out faster and faster, it must be deleted at some point. Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 01:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, is that Notability is not temporary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but notablity doesn't say we need a separate page for each version, only that Internet Explorer page should never be deleted. If we think about notability for each version separately then IE10 could be and IE11 could be not, even then I say all the versions we think are notable could be included in the IE article and only use a IE-version redirects to the relevant sections in the main IE article. comp.arch (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if we include all versions in the IE article, it will be so long. Chmarkine (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do that, I see no reason to NOT treat the most recent version differently if we want to. I was thinking of proposing splitting up Internet Explorer - take all historically important info out anyway. All pre-IE6 at least, if not up to (almost) the most current version (then it would end up being exactly this article.. plus some general stuff and links to older info). comp.arch (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Last Nomination): The IE11 was already released!!!!!! Timothyhouse1 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article on Internet Explorer cannot contain all information relevant to this particular version, so having a separate article for the version should be allowed. And since there is a well-maintained one (though it can obviously still be expanded), I see no reason to delete it. And this is not (yet?) a fast release cycle. SPQRobin (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is currently doing it by holding a comparable copy of this article. So, if you see no reason to delete, perhaps you are not looking at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This new version of IE is noticeably different and notable enough to merit its own article. —mc10 (t/c) 05:30, 28 October 2013 (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.