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 keep. New (near unanimous) consensus that this should be kept per the new sources found and per WP:DINC (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Java version history[edit]

Java version history (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)

This steps over the line of WP:NOT. Virtually the entire article is release notes from Oracle. The encyclopaedic content is around the change in release cadence, which can be covered in the main article with a single sentence. Guy (help!) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There may be an article to write on the history of Java; it is a vastly popular and rather old programming language which has seen a lot of change. However, this is not that article. The current article violates Wikipedia is not a directory; listing JEPs and syntax changes is the role of a changelog, not an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that having all JEPS for the article is not useful, but the kind of informations provided in the articles are not available easily. The fact that there is an overview of main changes for major versions is useful IMO. At the beginning, the article listed major changes, but I think that as times passed, editors began to include every small changes in the article, which was not the intent. So my advice would be to remove all the minor updates dates (and those changes which only bring , and only keep the key focus changes. However referring the JEP number is important I think because it is often the only way to source the change. As for the fact that a lot of informations are sourced by Oracle pages, I think that it's just because editors tried to source every release and lazily linked to the more easily available information. BTW, a lot if not all of version history articles here have exactly the same pattern. For example .NET Framework version history , Qt version history, the Ruby history, the version table for Python, the Google Chrome version history, the Firefox version history, etc... If we delete this article, we should delete them too (they have exactly the same "problems") Hervegirod (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, affirming what Hervegirod mentioned. We could debate whether this article should be merged into Java_(programming_language) or not, but the same issues others mentioned would still stand, namely not every JEP note needs to be included, and it's heavily sourced in a way that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. But I think a positive outcome of this discussion should be a clarified policy for all programming language versions going forward, because inevitably the sourcing will be largely singular for each and every small feature update/syntax change. Shushugah (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if we do seek a rule change/clarity on what change logs are appropriate we should update WP:PLOT part four

Shushugah (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, support rewrite: Per Hervegirod and Shushugah. The article is in definitive need of a rewrite, but I think the Java verson history is notable enough to have it's own article. Granted, it does go into over detail and sounds like an advertisement at some parts, but the article is salvageable enough to be fixed. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without a major rewrite, but with more independent sources. The only significant issue with this page is with WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point 4), which states that reliable third-party sources should be used. The information itself should be kept on Wikipedia, perhaps with some minor trimming if it is deemed excessive (as also mentioned in point 4). Modernponderer (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Modernponderer. More 3rd party sources should be used, and the level of detail trimmed a bit, but this is verifiable, useful, and notable. No reason to delete it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @SuperGoose007, Modernponderer, and DESiegel: did you have any particular sources in mind? We need actual (reliable independent) sources to argue notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, BenKuykendall, I haven't looked. but for a a language as widely used and written about as Java, I would be utterly astounded if at least the major versions were not well described in reliable 3rd party sources. Texts on the language seem like a good starting place, I know there are many of those. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @User:BenKuykendall: There are literally books specifically about new features in different Java versions, e.g. [1], [2], and [3]. And just in case you don't think those are reputable enough, how about some articles: [4], [5], [6] (all from one source but about different versions); [7], [8], [9]... I've already gone 3 times over WP:THREE, so I'll let you look for #10. But it's abundantly clear that WP:BEFORE didn't even factor into this nomination! Modernponderer (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Excellent sources by Modernponderer, easily meets GNG, but article could be improved. Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep might need a bit of cleanup, but obviouly notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Merge to Java (programming language)#Versions per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article as it is now is nothing but a simple listing of Java versions, which clearly does not qualify for inclusion. Even if it could be improved with added information about Java version history itself, there is no reason why that info shouldn't just be added to the subsection I linked to above. As is, there is very little in the way of WP:RS to expand this article with. A Google Scholar search brings up nothing of relevance and a standard Google search just includes other tertiary listings of version history. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) + changed !vote --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:36, 3 July 2020 (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.