Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux (second nomination)


 * 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 Keep.  Nish kid 64  04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Linux

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. If anything this should be an article about comparisons that other people have made with appropriate WP:RS cites. Instead we have fanboys for whichever platform coming in and "fixing" the article back and forth to fit their own POV. AlistairMcMillan 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Previous debate/nomination here: Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux


 * Comment The deleting editor has tried this technique before with Windows v. MAC OS-X e.g. previous debate/nomination for similar article here: Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X_%28second_nomination%29 where the article was very similar looking 30 minutes before the AfD but was then rapidly gutted by many edits after the AfD failed e.g.  . The Windows v. MAC OS-X article now fits conveniently on a 3.5 x 2 inch business card. Ttiotsw 09:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks you accusing me of making a bad faith nomination or whatever you are insinuating. However if you look at the edit history you'll see that the last time I edited the Win V Lin page was back in July 2006.  You'll also please note that the Win V Mac page also now only contains cited information.  AlistairMcMillan 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, welcome back, but with no edits on the page for 6 months you say hi with an AfD ? I was contrasting that method of arriving at consensus with your edits to the similar class of article at Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X. That article is now less than 100 words long: the article on belly fluff is over twice as long and 4 times as many wikilinks and yet these two OS are some of the largest software projects in the world backed by very focused and large companies. This just doesn't feel right. Ttiotsw 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm being too subtle. I think "Comparison of operatingsystemX and operatingsystemY" articles are a mistake.  I don't think they are encyclopedic.  I think they are a magnet for POV edits from people who really don't care about our policies.  Unless someone is going to make a lifetime commitment to keeping this article under control, I don't see how this article can be kept in a NPOV manner, even if it is tidied up enough to reach an NPOV state in the first place.  Note that this article has been here for two and half years now, and never reached a healthy state.  Two and a half years.  AlistairMcMillan 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned it's been 2 weeks or so (busy too as kids back to school) since I started on this article. For others maybe 1 day or for yourself it looks like 2 or so years. Linux has new kernel releases every few months, KDE and GNOME have had many updates and even Microsoft have finally got out their latest though in the interim have issued service packs and other stuff. Microsoft, Linux and Wikipedia are all moving targets. They never will stable !. What happened last week is a distant memory and certainly what happened 2 and 1/2 years ago is completely irrelevant to today. POV edits to me are more interesting than vandalism. Look at an article like Tennis ball. I don't care less for Tennis but every few weeks I revert vandalism. So does antivandalbot and others. I have no idea why it attracts crap. Is it a reason to cull the article ? No. Has it ever been "stable" ? No if the past month is anything to go by. Your noble quest to AfD'ing articles that doesn't stabilize within some timeframe you have in mind is to me quixotic given the fluid nature of Wikipedia and that I do not see a policy that says this is what has to happen. Ttiotsw 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

comment Most other comparison articles are straight side-by-side lists of features; this one delves heavily into original research to draw conclusions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think the question here, given that we have numerous other "comparison" articles on Wikipedia, is whether or not the ultra-controversial nature of the article itself will directly prevent it from being maintained in a policy-compliant form for any length of time. If, as AlistairMcMillan suggests, the article is (and will remain) a constant source of POV-based edit wars by either "camp" then the article very well may need to be deleted. If, however, it is possible to clean up the article into a policy-compliant form and keep it that way then it should be cleaned up and remain on Wikipedia. At least, that's my interpretation of this AfD. Discuss among yourselves. -- Y  &#124;  yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not suitable. Big  top  07:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too close to WP:OR. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a review or opinion piece. Agent 86 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I've only just started to look at this article in the past few weeks and I feel that there is sufficient material around to fill out the "citation needed" tags with trustworthy cites. Part of the problem is that there is quite a lot of disinformation, from both camps. Fact is that the article has 46 references and 10 citation needed tags now in an article 44 kbytes long so doesn't feel that bad from looking at other articles. The article will understandably be complex as OS's are probably some of the most complex software projects that humans have created. It does seem odd that this quite extensive (i.e. encyclopaedic) article that is slowly settling on a NPOV (remembering that Wikipedia has no version 1.0) is tagged for AfD whilst at the same time the editor requesting the delete is busy editing the very slim article on Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X e.g.   in a positive way. The AfD states "This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia." and yet they agree with the idea of comparing any two OS's by editing another similar class of article. This indicates a bias; why not simply edit this article to fit their idea of what the article should look like ? I call this AfD nonsense on that basis in that it is a subject for an encyclopaedia as Windows and Linux is extensively compared in the tech community and the deleting editor actually edits in a positive way the same class of article and that the article has "refs" outnumbering "cites needed" by 4:1 showing a need to expand on the cites and not delete the lot. Ttiotsw 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article has been around since last July (2006) and a review of the long and contentious history does not indicate any tendency for the article to resolve itself "into a policy-compliant form". The article shouldn't be a comparison, it should be about the controversy and the stances of the various participants in the controversy.  That can be factual and can be based on appropriate sources.  If the proponents of this article want to write that one, then let us delete this one, and they can create a new "Windows vs. Linux Controversy" article from scratch.  How long is it appropriate to allow them to fight before quashing it?  --Bejnar 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as similar articles exist, but anything that doesn't come from a reliable source explicitly comparing corresponding aspects of the systems, is on borrowed time. Contentious articles (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict) often end up having to accept a stricter application of verifiability. Gazpacho 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sure that this article could be improved, like most thing in WikiPedia, but it is clearly a notable topic and seems well referenced. NBeale 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content fork of Comparison of operating systems --⁪froth T 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ttiotsw. Comparisons between these two OS are a common occurrence, making this notable and verifiable.  As a result, AfD isnt a good way to address POV problems. John Vandenberg 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has been around since August 2004. It has always been POV.  What do you suggest should be done to fix this?  Should we wait another two and a half years for this page to sort itself out? AlistairMcMillan 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Enforce WP:V and WP:OR by requiring everything about merits of the systems in practice (security, cost, stability) to be cited to reliable sources comparing the two systems. Side-by-side comparisons of basic implementation details, like file access control, are OK, but they should be cited as well. Gazpacho 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be WP:BOLD and trim the article down to what is NPOV. If a edit war develops, follow Resolving disputes.  i.e. Requests for comment is probably where this request should have been taken. John Vandenberg 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. So we get it into an NPOV state... what happens then?  Check back every other day for the rest of my natural life to revert the nonsense that WILL attach itself to the page?  Are either of you volunteering?  This page is a magnet for POV edits.  It will not stay in an NPOV manner.  Please examine the edit history, others have tried.  AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now on my watch list. John Vandenberg 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless it's a straight list of stats, I see no chance (looking at the history) that this article will ever escape it's POV and OR roots. --Larry laptop 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if people want to present information about various operating systems, comparison of operating systems is by far the better choice. This article however, tends to create a problem in its direction.  Note, however, that the information itself is certainly not completely out of place, if anywhere though, it would be best placed in the article on the given operating system.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many technological differences between the systems (notably in the security model, file system and the device drivers/kernel). These differences are verifiable and encyclopedic. While individual entries may discuss these differences, an overview of these differences is needed. --h2g2bob 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, why can't this role be filled by the more generic Comparison of operating systems article? I know some people may wish to just compare Linux or Windows, but I'd rather choose that page than this one.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Comparison article can't really go into any depth on this topic. It assumes a wide range of knowledge without explanation (which is good for a quick reference, which it is). If it needs to be merged, I think it would be better merged with Windows vs OSX, as differences can be discussed more in depth. --h2g2bob 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, why not add that desirable depth to the other article? Or to the respective operating systems, if there is some need for the information there?  FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, numerous sources and studies have directly compared Windows and Linux, and this provides plenty of material from which to write a well-sourced and NPOV article. An assertion that this has not yet happened is an argument for WP:SOFIXIT, WP:RFC, WP:CU, or even a complete stubbing and rewrite, depending on the depth of the problem, but not for deletion. Many comparisons are directly between Win and Linux, not between other OS's, so this article provides a place for information which is not adequately covered by Comparison of operating systems. Seraphimblade 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per Seraphimblade. For complicated topics that require large articles, a comparison is useful as a summary. It can be done objectively. Even a comparison of people's opinions can be done objectively, and it is sometimes wiseto keep it off the main article.DGG 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I've seen worse articles get better treatment. You're never going to get it just right, as is Wikipedia. At the very least, I would say that unless the article has the title Why Linux is better than Windows or Why Windows kicks Linux's ass, this should stay.Mitch 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting it because it atracts POV bias is like not going to the market to buy food because it rains. The point is whether you are hungry and need the food, not whether it will be confortable to buy. To me the subject deserves an encyclopaedic entry, as potentially many people can benefit from resorting to Wikipedia to find this info. &mdash; Isilanes 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, this will be a magnet for POV, but it's improvable. As regards to "not suitable for an encyclopedia", what do you say about http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Windows+Linux+comparison&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,800,000 for Windows Linux comparison"? Check out Torchic: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Torchic+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for Torchic -wikipedia." { Slash |  Talk } 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you are making? --Larry laptop 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By not suitable for an encyclopedia, I meant that we could mention that people do compare the two operating systems. What we shouldn't be doing is making the arguments in the article ourselves.  Which is what is currently happening.  AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And as for the article being improvable... people said the same thing six months ago in the previous AFD. Did the article improve in those six months?  Yep a few people had a go, but they all eventually lost interest.  What is going to be different this time?  AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Frankly, I've written too much good content to stomach the deletion.


 * As to the argument that this piece attracts POV, there are dozens of Wikis with more inflammatory subject matter. GW Bush, for example.


 * This article is inherently an opinion piece. Many of you seem to feel the best route is to restrict the whole thing to 'facts'. I would counter that there are few, if any absolutes in such a comparison, and that only way ever approach NPOV is to back up everything you say with reasoning and support. The conclusion alone isn't enough; there must be context and references. In short, the 'why' must be present, and in a rote recital of 'facts', it is not. Dave Indech 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must commend you on managing to hit virtually all of the points covered in "arguments not to use at AFD" in one short paragraph - we have WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, "what about article X" and an admission that it's an op-ed piece! (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV!) Oh plus an rebuttle to those who want to keep a wikipedia article to "facts" (WP:V, WP:OR). --Larry laptop 09:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Be civil or please don't talk.
 * The most important word in my first line was 'good'. The fact that I wrote the content is irrelevant. My contributions are legitimately worth keeping because they add to the encyclopedia, and that's the reason I would rather the article remain.
 * 'Like it' was not in my post.
 * The comment about the George Bush article remains valid. The sole reason for a delete cannot be because an article attracts POV. A bad article with POV is better than no article. Eventually, it will improve.
 * Finally, NPOV is an entirely relative concept. A comparison, by nature, depends on the relative values of the person making it. It can approach neutrality, but never achieve it. Moreover, the value judgements that color NPOV add to the worth of the article.
 * While this comparison will never be a shining paragon of the Wiki way, I feel it should nonetheless remain.
 * Dave Indech 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- There seems to be a bit of an identity crisis over what Wiki is and is not. One article says, "articles must be encyclopaedic". Another says, "Wikipedia is not Britannica; we're not limited to that". I'm firmly in the latter camp. It's articles like the one we're debating that keep me coming back.


 * Someone needs to invent a barnstar for that. AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and more clearly assert notability in first paragraph in NPOV phrasing. If you read a variety of major computing-related magazines, both "industry" and "consumer" types, you know that this specific comparison has been widely featured in recent years to an extent not just part of Comparison of operating systems's scope.  Well-sourced, doesn't appear to need much cleanup, except trimming to better meet WP:NOT a how-to guide or tech manual.  Barno 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: On review, while there are a lot of online sources, this article could add citations from at least a dozen monthly print magazines that have done cover stories. Barno 18:45, 16 January 2007 (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.