Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operating system advocacy/2005-01-17

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 18:14, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Operating system advocacy

No potential to become encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". The lists of pro/con are nothing but each editors POV. None of the "facts" listed are cited in any way. I wasn't sure whether to mark this as vfd or cleanup, but something needs to be done about it. AlistairMcMillan 17:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is referenced in several places elswhere, and while it wouldn't be at home in a tradtional dead-tree encyclopedia, I feel that it fits here. Thryduulf 16:28, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and keep. Operating system advocacy can certainly be an encyclopedic phenomenon. (Apple evangelist, for instance.) Samaritan 18:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. I don't know whether the bulk of the article can be salvaged, and my own POV is too strong to even try, but the first section is encyclopedic and already NPOV. —Korath (Talk) 19:38, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
I vote to cleanup this article. I suggest as decision method to be used the strong majority (2/3) decision method. I suggest if a decision is taken to be valid for 2 months then reconsider (means that only after two months someone should be allowed to put it again for a vote for deletion/undeletion) . I suggest this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 5 days voters' participation will exceed 9 votes (regardless the population of the active or legitimate electorate). Iasson 20:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Clean up. An article on operating system advocacy is potentially worthwhile, but a simple pro/con list likely will never manage to be NPOV. I further suggest that any VfD comment longer than 75 words that contains policy statements not directly related to the article in question should be stricken if a simple majority (1/2 of logged in voters) concur. Users posting such comments should be flogged with a wet noodle until the matter is presented for reconsideration after a period of not less than two days. --TenOfAllTrades 21:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Apologies to my fellow Wikipedians; I have redacted the excess material from my comment. Policy commentary belongs elsewhere. I should know better than to edit while irked. --TenOfAllTrades 00:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - How about this vote? "Vote:Clean up. Suggest:"Strong Majority, decision for 2 mnth valid, min_voters= 9 in 5 days."". Suggestion is 67 letters long. Iasson 06:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: These are sensible and potentially valuable ideas, but they need work, raising them here is not going to affect the result of this listing, and it's probably counterproductive. Please go through the established channels for proposing and discussing policy changes. I know it's hard work. Vote below. Andrewa 21:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Pro/con lists are awful, this article should be refocused to cover operating system advocacy efforts. It's OK to have some OS comparisons, but we already have the Comparison of operating systems article. Pro/con lists must die. Rhobite 21:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Pro & con lists supports you. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
Keep. Lots of good material here. Needs work, yes. Andrewa 21:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it documents common arguments in OS advocacy - David Gerard 00:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep the introductory section. Delete the rest. All of it. My immediate reaction was that that pros and cons list will cause a perpetual simmering edit war. And — blow me! — a "'Does!' 'Doesn't!'" edit happened right as I was reading the article! What belongs in this article is a discussion of what operating system advocacy is, not a vast tract of actual operating system advocacy itself. "Here are some of the arguments, false or otherwise" says it all. Uncle G 00:17, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
Keep, needs definite cleanup and expansion, more NPOV. Megan1967 00:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this article consists of accurate statements about widely held opinions. Jimbo has said that "facts about opinions" are legitimate. I took a fairly careful look the Mac OS section and have no doubt that all of the opinions mentioned could easily be backed up by citations. That they aren't is an obvious weakness, which can be fixed. I saw no obvious evidence of bias in the article. It is a reasonable summary of the "conventional wisdom." I am curious to see where the article goes. The big danger, of course, is that it will become a battlefield for POV-warriors. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Topic has a strong potential to be encyclopedic. As it stands it is more "off topic" than anything else. The lists should probably be removed and replaced with at least a good stub. I would like to hear more about the history and future of operating system advocacy, and motivation for it. --Casito 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. the NPOV policy doesn't mean what you think it means, Alistair; an article that describes POVs is itself NPOV as long as it doesn't take a stance on whether any of those POVs is actually true. Quoting from the policy: "when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." As long as this article is merely describing the various common arguments that are made, it's fine. Bryan 22:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.