Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Object Pascal and C++


 * 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Object Pascal and C++

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Reason was: " This topic fails notability as a main criterion. It is original research. Since it lacks notability the fact that it is unverified is broadly irrelevant. Despite the obvious hard work put into the article it has no place in Wikipedia." Fiddle  Faddle  20:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Original research. It looks like this is a newer user who's not familiar with Wikipedia policy. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the referenced source for this is a set of pretty much identical tables. This makes it a borderline WP:COPYVIO. However, if the topic is deemed to be notable and to remain then there is no way of avoiding similar tables in source and Wikipedia article. The comparison is the comparison. Having read the source I am in two minds about Speedy Deletion as a copyright violation. I am 55:45 in favour of letting the AfD run its course on this one. Fiddle   Faddle  09:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a copyvio: the page bears little similarity to the source and even if it would then it still would not be a copyright violation due to "lack of originality". For the same reason this article would not be "original research". On its suitability as an encyclopedic article: we have several similar comparisons, which can be found in Category:Programming language comparisons. —Ruud 12:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That other articles exist is interesting but is not a reason for this one to exist, nor, indeed, for them to exist unchallenged either. The key criterion for an article's existence is notability. To remain here this article in this discussion must be deemed to be notable. I contend that it is not. Regarding copyright issues, there is an apparent direct correlation between the table(s) in this article and in the quoted source, sufficient to call issues of copyright into question. In addition, the source does not fall into the class of reliable sources. Rather, it is a primary source. Fiddle   Faddle  08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The reference shows it is not OR, and primary sources can be used under certain conditions (see WP:PRIMARY). But the article will need an introduction, as per WP:NOTJOURNAL. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Seriously, this is obvious garbage that does not belong to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Question Did consider a merge to Object Pascal WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion? ~KvnG 05:53, 5 August 2013 (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.