Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya release history

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya release history

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

The release history of this particular piece of software fails WP:N as a distinct topic. It does not appear to be worthy of a stand alone list, either. Novaseminary (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Wikipedia is the best place for gathering this type of historical information. The list can be enhanced over time with more sources and more details about each releases. See similar article 3ds Max release history A few press releases are already being used to nail down the dates. Request for deletion should only be used as a last resort for articles.lucericr (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lucericr, your edit history indicates that you have almost exlcusively edited pages related to this software and its related divisions and company. Be that as it may, how does the article meet WP:N? Any why is WP the best place for gathering this type of information? Isn't a significant purpose of the main article about this software to discuss how the software developed into its current form? As for the 3ds Max release history you point to, that other stuff exists is not sufficient reason to keep this. And, contrary to helping make your point, that article is another example of unsourced cruft. Novaseminary (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3DSMax article example is meant to show an example of where each release is much more detailed than a simple statement of version and date and where a separate article is interesting. This "Maya Release History" list was delete out of the main Maya article less than 8 days ago (12th of December 2010), I suggest first giving the community more time to improve this article, and suggests ways to improve it. Right now, it hasn't had time to get other editor's attention. If in a few months it is still just as spartan, for sure its necessity be reconsidered, I completely understand your point. Note that is very easy to source release history with press release, has it has been done here of a few of them. lucericr (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the subject of the article either meets N now or it doesn't (WP:V is less of an issue). If it is not notable (for Wikipedia purposes, not any other purposes) is should be deleted. The question isn't even whether it is useful or not, but whether it meets the criteria for inclusion (WP:DP). It can always be recreated if it does become notable. This sort of development history can go on the company's website and would warrant a reference cite, possibly, in the main article. It doesn't warrant its own article. And it is not a stand-alone list of wikilinks to various articles on WP, because none of the individual versions has an article because they would not meet WP:N apart from the main article either (unlike Microsoft Windows which does have separate articles for different versions, Windows 7, Windows 3.1, etc.). Novaseminary (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It's good stuff in many respects, and might perhaps be incorporated into the Autodesk Maya parent article, but our yardstick for notability is that other people have deemed the subject notable enough to discuss in depth (rather than just recite a list). Do any reliable sources do this for the history of which Maya product was released on which date? I doubt it. bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2010 (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.