Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux (3rd nomination)

Switched opinion
Below archived my original position and counter-arguments from IRWolfie.

keep. The topic itself is a very notable one. The AfD nomination is unspecific and misses the mark:
 * Notability: The topic has received significant coverage in mainstream tech media and draws significant interest. The topic has several reliable sources (secondary) covering various aspects: Tech publications offering opinions, reviews, comparisons and research by notable agencies such as IBM, Forrester, ITIC, Aberdeen, Symantec etc.
 * Original synthesis (assuming nominator was referring to both synthesis and original research): While there are still some elements of synthesis they are few and are being worked out. The tabular format is not synthesis, it does not inherently draw conclusions or express opinions of the editors, rather it allows description of each operating system and stays away from drawing conclusions. The synthesis which is in the article can be addressed by marking it as such and cannot be basis for deletion of the entire article (especially given the notability of the topic). Nominator fails to point out where there is original research going on.
 * Sources: Most of the article is now well-sourced and there is an ongoing process to mark and delete self-published sources and find reliable sources. Given the topic the sources are naturally both primary sources as well as secondary sources. Primary sources used are references to man pages or other forms of documentation. These are clearly acceptable as long as they are used exclusively to document the presence of functionality or features or the intent by the OS vendor. The use of these are well within WP guidelines. The article also use mainstream tech media articles for comparisons, opinions and sourcing. Finally, there exists research on a number of the topics covered. They are duly referenced. In short, by not being specific, nominator avoids explaining how the sources are unreliable.
 * multiple versions: Yes, the article deals with multiple versions of both Windows and Linux. In a number of places it manages to explain the differences where they exist. In other words, the article demonstrates that it is certainly possible to deal with this issue. Again, this is not an acceptable basis for deletion.
 * susceptible as fast paced development: This is a strange objection, as it can be levied against all articles on current software products (or mobile phones?).
 * In short, the article covers a notable topic, it has a lot of reliable sourcing and sees ongoing improvement. I disagree that it can be merged into the respective operating system articles: That would forego the notable topic of comparison. I disagree that it can be merged into a general OS comparison: That would forego the specific topics where Windows and Linux exhibit interesting differences. Windows and Linux are two very popular OSes, and in many areas they are the most popular and interesting operating systems to compare. Useerup (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The main issues have not been dealt with here: Notability has not been shown, can you provide sources that compare Windows and Linux with the roughly the same topics as is shown in the article? The reports mentioned compare specific aspects such as "Total cost of ownership" which already have a separate article. Most of the topics covered are just those arbitrarily selected by the editors, this is the synthesis I refer to. note:Very few of the sources in the article actually compare Windows and Linux IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic itself a a notable one. It is the subject of debates and opinions again and again in tech media. There is no need to provide sources which compare "roughly the same topics" - the notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list (quoted from WP:N). In other words, what is relevant here is whether a comparison of Windows and Linix is worthy of notice. Given that it is a constant debate in IT and tech media, the topic of many articles, opinions and discussions, that various research organizations and publications have compared aspects such as security, vulnerabilities, reliability, performance, price, cost of ownership etc; yes it is most certainly worthy of notice. You may have grievances as to the content or specific parts thereof, but that has no bearing on the notability of the topic. Below is just an excerpt of articles (not personal blog posts) which has dealt with this topic.
 * Five Reasons why Google's Linux Chromebook is a Windows killer
 * Windows Beat Unix, But It Wont Beat Linux
 * A Linux answer to Windows SBS: ClearOS
 * The Windows-versus-Linux server face-off
 * Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista: The Battle For Your Desktop
 * Linux vs. Windows: Choice vs. Usability
 * Linux vs. Windows Viruses
 * Windows Home Server versus Linux or BSD
 * Linux vs. Windows: The Rematch
 * Linux versus Windows: another fine Microsoft TCO Analysis
 * Study Pits Windows Versus Linux
 * Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac OS X
 * All of the above are notable viewpoints on the topic.
 * Then we have IDC comparing market share, Secunia, IBM, Trend, Symantec comparing vulnerabilities and responses. You have phoronix comparing graphics performance, file system performance, tom's hardware comparing performance, efficiency etc. Examples:
 * Is Windows 7 Actually Faster Than Ubuntu 10.04?
 * Windows 7 Vs Ubuntu Gaming Benchmarks
 * Linux Needs to Master Hardware to Beat Windows
 * The State Of The Personal Computer
 * Linux, Unix as Vulerable as Windows
 * Is Linux More Secure Than Windows?
 * Windows beats Linux - Unix on vulnerabilities - CERT
 * Symantec Internet Security Threat Report Trends for January–June 07
 * IBM X-Force® 2008 Trend & Risk Report
 * And it is not a notable topic? Useerup (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Compares Chrome OS and Windows. This is comparing two specific versions, and not the generalized comparison we have.
 * 2. This is not a comparison of Windows and Linux article.
 * 3. Again, not a comparison of Windows and Linux article.
 * 4. This compares two specific versions, which is not like the Comparison of Windows and Linux article.
 * 5. This doesn't appear to be a comparison article either, it seems to discuss the issues with Windows users when they use Linux distros.
 * 6. This article appears to discuss why there are more viruses on windows than Linux and Mac.
 * 7. This article seems to compare more operating systems than just Windows and Linux, i.e Comparison of operating systems material
 * 8. This article actually is about the feasability of a Windows user switching to SuSE, not a comparison.
 * 9. An article already exists on the Get the facts campagin.
 * 10. An article about a reliability study commissioned by microsoft, again not the general comparison that we have in the article.
 * 11. We don't have a Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X article either.
 * 12. This is comparing Windows and Ubuntu, again not a general comparison.
 * 13. Link doesn't work
 * 14. The article doesn't appear to be about Windows Vs Linux but does make one comparison that Linux is cheaper to develop for.
 * 15. This doesn't seem to be a comparison article, it discusses where Windows, Mac OS X and Linux are at and where the author thinks they will go.
 * 16. Talks about Linux and Unix. It's not actually an OS comparison article once again.
 * 17. The same idea as the previous
 * 18. Same as previous
 * 19. It compares 5 distinct and separate operating systems
 * 20. It compares multiple operating systems against each other.
 * As I have mentioned in my reasons, there is no article which compares Linux against Windows against each other in the way we have done so in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tiring
I don't condone cessation of information, especially when it involves collaborative work that required a lot of time to be created. This is a serious issue of the MediaWiki software that needs to be dealt with, as complete deletion is not the way to go. They should be archived by default without being highlighted, where it's accessible for those who desire. Fortunately, there's some third-party services that automatically archives Wikipedia articles. The only problem is the fragmentation, as those services rely on crawling to gather the content, and every piece is not always saved, like the discussion page. Here's the archive of this article: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux --PowerPatrick (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)