Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of C Sharp to Java Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_to_Java

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of C Sharp to Java

Where do I start? (WP:NOT)... Original thought/research.... Wikipedia is not a manual. I think there are more possible reasons for deletion but that'll do for now chowells 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the main critisisms of C# has been that it's too similar to Java. A page like this is useful to point out differences. It also does not seem much different than other articles within Category:Programming language comparison --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 22:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment similar pages is not justification for keeping this one -- maybe they should be up on AfD too. chowells 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But those pages aren't on AfD, and that fact does set a certain type of precident. My feeling is that those pages are not flukes or outliers, but instead represent the state of technical comparisons on Wikipedia, and could be used as informal standards. Tbjablin 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could you please clarify your (Chowells's) criticism? This article is not a manual. It does not explain how to accomplish any given task. Similarly, the article is free of original research or thought, there is not disagreement on most of the criticism of the C# and Java, and even those criticisms which are not accepted universally are at least in the public domain of ideas and not the personal grievances of a particular wiki editor. Although formatted differently the article's content is not different from Comparison of Java to C Plus Plus or Comparison of generics to templates, and is certainly more encyclopedic in tone and format than Comparison of operating systems. Tbjablin 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is inherently non-WP:NPOV. Many of the items under "Advantages of C#" I would consider to be a disadvantage. IMHO it's verging on the definition of propaganda and advocacy in WP:NOT. Other "comparison" pages simply contain tables listing facts, having a page listing "advantages" and "disadvantages" is I think going too far chowells 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized the information in line with Haeleth's suggestion. Any thoughts? Tbjablin 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's orders of magnitudes better. I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest Keep chowells 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but rewrite to address the POV issues chowells correctly identifies. Replacing subjective "advantages"/"disadvantages" with objective differences would be a good start. (Other problems include unverifiable generalisations like "better performance in OS-specific tasks".) Haeleth 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid article topic, as per precedent. If you don't like something else about the article, remedy it. (Good on Haeleth for taking the first step.) --Jacquelyn Marie 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what precedent? My nomination was partially based on the precdent set in a previous VfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BSD_and_Linux chowells 09:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's useful (especially the listings) and the POV issue could be addressed. freshgavin ^TALK 05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful article. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For as long as these languages are so simular it would be interesting to monitor their convergence/devergence through the course of evolution. We might consider labeling the comparison with versions. --moxon 16:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally nominated this article because it was hopelessly POV and I couldn't imagine how it could be improved. I'm pleased to say that I was proven wrong so can we just speedily keep this now please to avoid anybody else wasting time voting when it's clearly going to be kept. Thanks. chowells 11:05, 23 October 2005 (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.