Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editor war


 * 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-- JForget 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor war

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

 This article seems to be totally based on original research. "The two largest camps are....." - I imagine it's not quite NPOV, and that it contains weasel words or whatever. It neems to be scrapped altogether - as far as I can tell, it's not even all that notable.

All that said, those who vote in the AfD will probably all be 'hacker culturalists' themselves and all try to keep the article :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep vi forever! Err, um, well, seriously, the concept is well established, and there are enough references . This is deeply embedded in hackerdom, and you're going to get the same arguments from the same people who don't want to keep Kibo and the like, because most of the references are "unreliable usenet" and that kind of stuff. Yngvarr (t) (c)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced and well-written with arguments from both sides. This page may be prone to vandalism due to the nature of the topic, though.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Comment What did I say?!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to above I'm sorry, but if you expected as such, why bring it up? It is a historical debate. Just search for "vi versus emacs", you're going to find hundreds of references. But, as I said, the reliability factor comes in play, because many people don't accept precedents where the only evidence is from a community who's primary existence is an on-line one (e.g., there are not going to be many print refs). Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not a hacker and haven't even heard of those programs. I'm simply listing what I think after reading the article.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 17:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs more context wrt the notability of this particular feud, but it's definitely one of the top computer-industry "philosophical" disputes/holy wars along with Mac vs. PC and Unix vs. desktop OS or ATM vs. TCP/IP. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has ten references and a relatively neutral tone. Possibly it could use some more context and references in the lead paragraph but these are issues for the article collaboration and improvement drive, not AfD. Feezo (Talk) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has references and seems to be notable. Cleanup would be a good idea but not deletion. And Porcupine, read this essay. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is _the_ prototypical flame war meme, coming from the origins of the Internet culture. Future historians would have a hard time figuring what was going on and why all this energy was wasted, without this Wikipedia article to clarify the tongue-in-cheek tone of these "religious" wars. The article would benefit from expanding the "current state of the editor war" with some references to relevant original Usenet posts, and some quotes from "The Art of Unix Programming" to explain how it all started, but this lack of context is not on itself a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Moya (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Famous feud, though largely historical today. -- Groggy Dice T | C 15:34, 9 October 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.