Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of word processors


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of word processors
Judging from its contents and comments on the discussion page, the purpose of this article is in fact not a comparison of word processors but a presentation of one or a few people's views of what a word processor should be. That might be a good blog post or business proposal, but it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, there is no information in this article that is not in the word processor article. Bill 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless recreated from scratch with information like the other Comparison of... pages. porges 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per porges. WP:NOT violated. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be original research-- T B C ☆ O   M   G! 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - or invite the author to Merge/add the content to other articles such as word processor. - Richardcavell 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge per Richardcavell --M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --Ter e nce Ong 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deletes seem to be objecting to the way the article has currently been written, not to the viability of such an article in itself. Surely the whole point of a collaborative venture is that other editors will work on an article that needs improvement, not just delete it because it's not good enough. There is an article Comparison of text editors which is directly comparable to this one and demonstrates the standard that this article needs to aim for. I have put an improve tag on it and a note on the article talk page to this effect. Many articles start off poorly and change out of all recognition over time. Tyrenius 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tyrenius. Legitimate article - needs improvement, that's all.   dbtfz talk 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a reasonable thing to cover; think of how useful the edit history will be in twenty years... -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, subjective definition of word processor -- Hirudo 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tyrenius T  e  k e  05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tyrenius and improve. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- POV article; obvious future target for edit-wars; list-with-no-end; original research as there as (AFAIK) no agreed benchmark standards in this area -- Simon Cursitor 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above--Smerus 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. Mystache 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Legitimate article needing more time to evolve. As per Tyrenius. davidzuccaro 13:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete any comparison which couldn't stand on its own without removing "comparison of" from the title. We already have word processor, no need for this.  Also original research in the way the author defines a word processor.  Wordperfect 5.1 never had a graphical web design capability. &mdash; AKADriver  &#x260E;  14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Not much more than a list right now, but it can be improved. --Optichan 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The article has potential for improvement. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a worthy topic, but needs a rewrite - it's not going in the right direction. -- Mithent 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag for improvement. If rewritten to be like comparison of text editors it would be OK, I guess. Herostratus 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs work, not deletion. For great justice. 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doesn't appear to be in contravention of any criteria that decrees what shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. --Arm 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with some hard work it could become a good article. I  Lov  E Plankton 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and refactor to, well, a comparison of word processors. Just zis Guy you know? 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Knucmo2, the article as it stands is just an exposition of somebody's view of what word processors should be like. That violates NPOV and original research at least. To the people who say that an article on the topic of Comparison of Word processors could be good, if like the existing Comparison of text editors, I agree. The question is, since this article as it stands isn't even on that topic, in spite of its title, and has shown no hint of evolving in that direction in over a month of frequent edits, is it better to leave it and hope for a complete replacement, or to get rid of it until someone comes along and starts an article actually devoted to the topic?Bill 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It seems to me to be an attempt to define the difference between a text editor and a word processor. That seems a reasonable enough way to introduce the topic. Maybe it could be improved, but that is of course the point of a collaborative project. Then there is a list with some minimal comparisons, again something to be improved. A month is not a long time in the evolution of Wikipedia. I can't see the rush to delete, rather than improve. There seems to be a growing tendency to think that a badly written article is cause for deletion, so all the energy goes into AfD discussions about it, rather than working on it. Tyrenius 00:58, 28 April 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.