Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intent (Android) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intent_(Android)

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent (Android)

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

Basically a dicdef, which should be covered if at all in some more substantive article on how Android works. bd2412 T 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important topic in Android, which is covered in all of the numerous books on android development (see Google books search). I wouldn't oppose a merge to an article on the Android software architecture model (or whatever you want to call it), but I can't see a suitable article. Plenty of scope for expansion, covering how the operating system handles intents, what commonly used intents are available, how they compare to features in other OSes, etc, without falling into WP:HOWTO territory. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because it's covered by guides as part of a larger topic does not mean every object in programming needs a Wikipedia article. It might warrant a brief mention in an appropriate article, but it doesn't need a standalone article as it fails WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (we have reliable sources) and WP:NOTPAPER (there's no limit to the amount of knowledge we can support), or merge if a suitable article is found per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Beyond its description in numerous technical books, intents were a big deal at the early stages of Android when compared to the iPhone, as they allowed the user to choose which application to use for each action; press coverage for that era noted this as an achievement that establishes its relevance. Diego (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of technical information. Main Android page can mention this minor topic if needed. jni (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge and redirect, then? The article title is a likely search term when using the search suggestions. (Although I think this detailed technical description would be undue weight for the already long main article). Diego (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference from the ACM conference that received about 145 citations, as well as expanded the stub with references from various publishers. Diego (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a brief entry in a book about a marginally related subject still doesn't change the inappropriateness of such a subject having a standalone entry, nor does it muster enough to pass WP:GNG at all. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may very well be true in general, but it doesn't apply to this article as it does not describe the situation of sources for this topic. Receiving coverage in the world's major conference in computing makes this a non-random topic. Diego (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually describes the references pefectly; trivial incidental mentions only. It would be "coverage" at a conference if reliable sources reported that coverage; merely being mentioned at a conference does not attribute towards notability...why would it? - Aoidh (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:52, 18 September 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.