Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Ajax and Flex

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 Delete. Usefulness is not a deciding factor in keeping an article (even though it is an understandable sentiment), and no indication that the independent sources are forthcoming or available. Fram (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Ajax and Flex

There is very scant verifiable information contained in this article and without facts, it can hardly be considered "encyclopedic." I am not sure how anything other than a complete rewrite could save it. However, as other people have also mentioned, I don't know there is truly a great debate between these two technologies. Therefore the value of a rewrite would be negligible.

--I have to agree that it appears that this article was not written for the purpose of providing information but rather to try and draw a favorable comparison of Flex over Ajax. It smacks of someone writing articles as a paid advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.125.90 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology comparison articles which affect the marketplace should be left to 3rd party research professionals such as Frost and Sullivan, IDC, Wainhouse Research, etc. Otherwise, for such an article to appear on Wikipedia, each statement of fact must be accompanied by a reliable 3rd party reference. Without such, it falls under WP:NOR. Articles like these are very difficult to verify, much less maintain. GaryECampbell (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... and yet, referenced by the media "and several good Wikipedia pages."[1](towards bottom of page). (Don't know if I'd put in an "I like it" !vote yet, as I haven't read the article yet - don't delete it just yet?) Shenme (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - filled with synthesis; not an encyclopedic article. It will need a lot of fixing to convince me to keep it. Start from srcatch. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to fall too far towards WP:OR overall. But there is a history of other comparison articles, so I'm only "weak" in the delete direction. LotLE×talk 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt seem to be well sourced, it's find it unlikely that these will be compared in any detail. Any such comparisons should probably go in the Rich Internet application article. --neon white talk 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a proprietary issue. Tigertron (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC) !vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete, if there is some useful information, merge it. --Dezidor (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously ambiguous title; I was hoping for a who'd-win between the Trojan War hero and the stretching guy from Alpha Flight. That would make for a more interesting comparison than this article comparing two back-office, non-consumer Internet development technologies. Agree that an epitome of this stuff might be profitably added to the Rich Internet application article. (Question: is "Internet" a proper noun, such that it gets capitalized in the Manual of Style?) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fall under "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." Very unencyclopedic and full of original research and POV. Also, why those specific technologies? If a comparison is to be done at all, it should encompass more RIA frameworks/platforms than just those two. — ^Fatal Error 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend against Deletion I don't have a stake in -- nor extensive familiarity with -- either technology and I found the discussion to be relatively helpful in understanding the relationship between the two technologies. In programming no-one can be an expert in every area so when it comes to learning about a new area, a comparison between different technologies or different implementations of a single technology can be very helpful. I would love to see a comprehensive comparison between Flash, Flex and AIR. Cal Schrotenboer July 11, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.193.86 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's useful is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussion. This is about whether the comparison is notable or purely original research and at the moment there are no sources for the comparison. In my opinion they are unlikely to be compared as they arent really directly competing technologies. For example Flex is far more likely to be compared to Silverlight or JavaFX and Ajax more comparable with .NET framework or Java. --neon white talk 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article needs references to reliable sources and expansion. If this does not happen, I would change my vote to delete if that made sense. Fdp (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.