Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Python vs C Plus Plus example

Python vs C Plus Plus example
Not an encyclopedic article subject. The given example is not a fair comparison of the languages either. Fredrik | talk 17:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. We're not a techie-howto site. If someone were to start one somewhere, that would be cool, but not here. --Improv 19:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. Zwilson 23:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks and restore the link to it in the Python programming language article. This is not an encylopedia article, but it is an excellent illustration for an encylopedia article. As such, it belongs somewhere on the project. As to whether this example is a fair comparison: you're right that it's not a comprehensive comparison between the two languages. However, this is irrelevant, and also not a valid reason to delete. This example is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion. It's just one piece of evidence, not the whole picture. &bull; Benc &bull; 02:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 07:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Transwiki wikibooks Wolfman 16:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not transwiki. It's a comparison of two implementations of the solution of one problem, not a general comparison between the two languages. As such, I don't think it's useful in either Wikipedia or Wikibooks. I'm willing to reconsider if the article is modified before the discussion runs out. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we want to become another slashdot. Falcon 06:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted it is an excellent illustration and we have lots of those. It does not claim to be an exhaustive comparison and I at least found it interesting. --Rjstott 06:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * move, this text should have been at talk:Python programming langauge/Python_vs_C_Plus_Plus_example. (check "what links here") It's an interesting illustration for the purpose it was placed here, but shouldn't be in main namespace.Kim Bruning 19:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)