MyWiki:Articles for deletion/Java syntax

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Java syntax

Java syntax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been transwikied to b:Java Programming/Syntax; this is purely manual-style content which does not provide descriptive, real-world value beyond that which is addressed in the Java (programming language) article. Was PRODded only to be contested on procedural grounds due to the same thing happening three years ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid fork from Java (programming language). Java is syntactically distinct and an interesting case in syntax. I consider the syntactical anomalies and choices in Java to be encyclopaedic. The page however needs to be severly cleaned up as I agree with the assertion that this looks more like a manual than an article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Per Usernme h8er, we probably should have an article on the topic of Java syntax. The language is important, and its syntax is highly influential (C#, for instance, having been very heavily influenced by it). There's room for an article describing the unusual features of it and cataloguing what its influences were and what it has influenced. But that isn't what this article is; this article is a rather boring and pointless enumeration of all the syntax elements in the language. If kept, it needs to be almost entirely rewritten. But unless it seems like somebody is going to take on the task of fixing it (I don't have the time to work on such a large project, otherwise I would) I think it should be deleted, or perhaps just cut back to a stub, until such time as somebody does take it on. JulesH (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly. The degree to which the article would need rewritten to provide an encyclopedic view of the subject basically negates the possibility of getting there from here. There's so little here which can be salvaged that is essentially useless as a starting point. It can't be used to develop an article, and isn't currently recognisable as an encyclopedia article itself. The material won't be lost; it's been moved to a far more appropriate home on Wikibooks if it needs referenced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. We don't delete things just because they need to be re-written. See WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  It's been preserved, by transwikiing it. Were there salvageable content I wouldn't be taking it to AfD. "Wherever possible" does not mean "in every single case". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Even if none of the existing content is salvageable, I think the proper remedy in this case is re-writing rather than deletion. I realise you disagree but I think policy is on my side here.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of the AfD was to confirm that consensus is that the content, throughout its history, is not worth keeping. If it's kept it'll be stubbed, thus removing any point in keeping it in the first place. I fail to see what the value is in continuing to drag a useless revision history around in that case. The rot set in in the third revision of the article, and it's never gone anywhere positive since. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep per User:S Marshall's excellent points. Ikip (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This article is essential to understanding the Java programming language. And as ikip pointed out, Afd is not for cleanup. This article simply needs a little rewording. Deleting this article would seriously hamper the coverage and understanding of java on wikipedia. Smallman12q (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per S Marshall. decltype 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep AFD is not cleanup. Artw (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not because it needs rewriting. But because there is nothing that is worth keeping. Taemyr (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - While the topic of Java syntax is likely suitable, this article is 100% not that article. I understand that we normally do not delete articles that potentially could be viable, but this article is not the start of such an article. In fact the presence of the current content is likely to be an impediement to the creation of such an article editors may be hesitant to cut the content down to zero before starting. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (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.