Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki 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 merge to MediaWiki. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki release history

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

Non-notable article; we don't need a HOWTO for MediaWiki, we just need a general overview of the product. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 23:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failed rationale; please tell the world how a history section split out of main, summary-style, article is a HOWTO? How to what? Make a clone of Mediawiki once again? WP:HOWTO is not really about content. It's about form of presentation: "Wikipedia articles should not read like <seven things listed>". Tabular lists of software releases are not among these seven things. As for your (not "ours") opinion on the "needs": every editor is entitled to their own. Why should your opinion hold more weight than the opinions of those who wrote the article? WP:NOTPAPER says clearly: "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content <...> articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." East of Borschov 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When did I say that "[my] opinion [should] hold more weight than the opinions of those who wrote the article"? This page has no independent, reliable third-party sources; whatever it has right now are bad self-references as products of Wikimedia, and it is written in heavy MediaWiki jargon that makes it read like a how-to guide (stuff like "MediaWiki 1.7 requires PHP 5 (5.1 recommended). PHP 4 is no longer supported." for example). There is probably minimal content that can be salvaged from a guide to be put into the MediaWiki article. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:IINFO, item #3 ("Excessive listing of statistics")? Ipsign (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utter failure of WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely devoid of secondary sources or any particular argument for notability. Articles which are split from their parent texts still need to have a claim to notability themselves, as it isn't inherited. This is either a copy of an external set of release notes, or a hand-compiled summary of the same, and neither are appropriate here without reliable secondary sourcing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, in particular item #3 ("Excessive listing of statistics"). IMHO isn't important enough even for merging. If I (as the user of Wikipedia) would be interested in this information, I'd go to MediaWiki page, and from there - to MediaWiki site, where this information IMHO belongs. Ipsign (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it would be useful information to someone. If they want it, transwiki to MediaWiki and soft redirect. Otherwise, keep. I don't find the WP:IINFO arguments compelling as this is certainly not indiscriminate, and it seems like unnecessary clutter in the main article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ipsign (talk · contribs)'s rationale. LiteralKa (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to MediaWiki.org. There are [[mw:]] interwiki links for a reason. Merge to the MediaWiki article is a fine option too. Steven Walling 05:29, 29 November 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.