Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows vs. Mac
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Windows vs. Mac
Contested prod. Personal essay. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 11:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Good faith article by essayist but Wikipedia is not for original writing.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Tuspm(C | @) 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. NawlinWiki 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- How is this article any different to Comparison of Windows and Linux? And how is the solution to the problems of this article to delete it? Should you not be pointing the author at Wikipedia:Pro & con lists, mercilessly excising any content that is not accompanied by a source citation, and neutralizing any content that makes Wikipedia have a point of view? Given this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, why do you think that it is impossible to turn this into a sourced article by means of simple editing? Uncle G 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is that Comparison of Windows and Linux has 23 citations WilyD 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's rather unreasonable to expect an article to gain 23 citations just 10 hours after its creation. I notice that you don't answer the other questions. Uncle G 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did not expect 23 sources to be quickly added. But the difference is that this article fails WP:V so it's deletable, whereas Comparison of Windows and Linux passes WP:V so it's improvable, but not deletable. Violations of WP:NPOV which also fail WP:V are best just trashed. Passing WP:V takes the teeth outta a lot of deletion discussions. But zero references is an acceptable reason to delete an article, even if that's not always enforced under rules of common sense. WilyD 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are erroneously conflating Verifiability and Citing sources. We do not delete articles because they cite no sources. We delete them because they are unverifiable. Zero references is not an acceptable reason for deleting an article. An article is not unverifiable if it does not cite sources. It is unverifiable if it does not cite sources and no sources can be found to cite. I've given you 10 potential sources above, which were relatively easy to find (and using which this article can be turned into a proper article using the normal method of simply editing it — clearly belying your assertion that this article is not improvable). I encourage you and all editors to actually expend the effort in looking for sources when they encounter articles with no sources. That an article cites no sources does not make it unverifiable. Uncle G 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did not expect 23 sources to be quickly added. But the difference is that this article fails WP:V so it's deletable, whereas Comparison of Windows and Linux passes WP:V so it's improvable, but not deletable. Violations of WP:NPOV which also fail WP:V are best just trashed. Passing WP:V takes the teeth outta a lot of deletion discussions. But zero references is an acceptable reason to delete an article, even if that's not always enforced under rules of common sense. WilyD 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's rather unreasonable to expect an article to gain 23 citations just 10 hours after its creation. I notice that you don't answer the other questions. Uncle G 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is that Comparison of Windows and Linux has 23 citations WilyD 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OR unless a substantial reqrite, including mad insertion of verifiability is implimented. WilyD 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OR, plus WP:NPOV and WP:V to boot as well. With language like "Proprietary hardware is always a bummer," it has the NPOV problems that Comparison of Windows and Linux doesn't. hateless 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That can be fixed by editing the article in the normal manner (which you and anyone else can do). Why do you think that deletion rather than ordinary editing is the way to fix the problems with this article? Uncle G 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because I can't see anything salvagable about the article at all. Not even the title, which implies conflict. You might as well start from the beginning, or say, go to Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X and save that page from its AFD. hateless 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The title should be a redirect, just as Windows vs. Linux is. But deletion isn't the way to do that, either. Again, ordinary editing is all that is required. Uncle G 10:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because I can't see anything salvagable about the article at all. Not even the title, which implies conflict. You might as well start from the beginning, or say, go to Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X and save that page from its AFD. hateless 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That can be fixed by editing the article in the normal manner (which you and anyone else can do). Why do you think that deletion rather than ordinary editing is the way to fix the problems with this article? Uncle G 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "Windows Vs. Mac will be a debate where no one wins. The core of this argument is what is best for you." It's definetly an essay, not a good one at that. An essay would at least argue one side. -Royalguard11Talk 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. —Hanuman Das 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Original Research. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
