Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java syntax

Java syntax

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]