Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X (3rd 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 no consensus. -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X

 * Windows vs. Mac was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "delete".  For the prior discusson, see Articles for deletion/Windows vs. Mac.
 * Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discusson, see Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X.
 * Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".  For the prior discusson, see Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X (second nomination).

Delete: When first nominated for deletion, the article was really long, but was a real mess because its content was very un-encyclopedically disposed. The discussion lead to a "Keep", since the article was still young (it was marked for deletion on its first day) and seemed to be possible to develop. Three months later, it was again nominated for deletion because the article hadn't gotten better in the elapsed time. The result was "No concensus", because some thought that it should be deleted, and others thought that it should be rewritten. Now, considering that we are five months later, and the article is in no way better than it was for the first and the second nomination (unsourced or dubiously sourced statements, unencyclopaedic content), I therefore propose it for deletion. There is no real contributor interested in making this article better with reliable sources, NPOV, and everything that an article as controversial as a comparison of two major operating systems need. The almost sole contributors to the article are anonymous users throwing in their opinions or ideas, regardless of whether it is encyclopaedic or not, or whether it is sourced or not. My opinion : this article is doomed to fail, as it is the subject of a religious war for many people, and cannot gather "facts" to make a real comparison of operating systems. I will never become a good article in my opinion. Dravick 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Good points, but if it's deleted I think someone will create a new article the next day on this topic. It's better to fact tag every unsourced statement and delete it if sources doesn't appear, I think. iNic 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I do understand the issues raised by the nominator, the topic is real and nodoubtly can be sourced largely from reviews and comparisions that have been published widely. The other issues, namely that only anonymous user edit the article, and that it currently is a mess, are no reasons for deletion, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is problematic from the title forward.  For one, we are putatively comparing Mac OS X which has gone through 6 major version changes over a period of 8 years, and the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems which has gone through 7 distinct operating systems and countless individual revisions.  This is just dripping with confusion and leaves the reader wondering precisely what we are comparing.  Comparison articles of this nature are further hindered by the fact that, while they are in direct competition, it is difficult to come up with objective comparisons as they run different subsets of software on different computer architectures.  Combine these issues together and you really are comparing apples (hah!) and oranges.  Furthermore, if you bother looking around for objective comparisons, good luck - it's about as easy to find neutral and objective comparisons between the two as it is to find fair comparisons between Republicans and Democrats - avoiding POV is hard.  That said, I believe this article can be deleted on technical merit alone.  Get rid of the unsourced information and you are left with "Some people compare Mac vs Windows.  Mac gets less viruses."  Sub-sub-stub and pretty much devoid of content.  Arguments that there "should be more sources out there" and "someone could improve the article" are no longer valid - the nominator is correct in saying that the article has been given far more than enough time and no one has stepped up to bring it up to standards.  Continually passing on the buck and relying on "someone else" to fix it is not a reason to keep it, particularly after so long.  The article ahs had it's chance and lost.  Time for it to go. Arkyan 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just not something that is encyclopedic, even if it's verified, notable, etc. etc. Will anybody care in five years about this particular comparison? 15? Better discussed under an article of "OS Design Theory," or such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - This article is verified, informative and useful for wikipedia users. Richard Cavell 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Comparison" is far too vague; it's easy to compare different versions of the same OS, but Windows and Mac OS are apples and oranges. Constant updates to each OS mean this article means this article will constantly be out-of-date and inaccurate. It's also full of OR, and impossible to source without synthesizing information to draw new conclusions. This is material for a computer magazine, CNet, etc.; not Wikipedia. — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your conclusion, but a general comparison article of Windowses with Mac OSes needn't be constantly out-of-date, so long as it focusses on stable features. (Of course, such an article should make plain that it is a “big picture” article, lacking coverage of more changeable characteristics.) —SlamDiego 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, most of the article is OR and very vague. That and it's not really encyclopedic and is redundant as several OS comparison lists already exist. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Revise - The general purpose of the article is to compare the two operating systems, alike to how the Comparison of Windows and Linux entry does. Certainly, the information may be better presented in a general OS comparison article, but the comparison of Windows and the "new" Mac OS is worth it in either form. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is this article doesn't compare any particular version of Windows with OSX. It's just says "Windows". That could mean XP, Vista, Longhorn, Server 2000, Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.... you get my point. Same goes for OSX. Doesn't specify which version of OSX. It could be anything from OSX Server 10 through 10.5. This article at MINIMUM, needs to be retitled and moved. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — While no article should be deleted simply because it is and has long been bad, as other editors note above, Windows has had many version, while Mac OS X is essentially Mac OS 10.x. An article comparing all versions of Windows with all version of Mac OS could have my support; an article comparing recent versions of Windows NT with Mac OS X could have my support; but this article is fundamentally, irreparably broken. —SlamDiego 05:17, 20 March 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.