Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (image)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (image)

It's an abstract picture; so says the image. It's the standard wallpaper of Windows Vista; so says the text. Those who know the wallpaper's name know these things already, and the article offers nothing more—not even a reference or external link. I'm not sure there is much more to know. I put a {{notability}} template there about a month ago, just to be sure (this is my first AfD nomination), but nothing happened; the article has existed since June 2007, anyway. Perhaps a list of wallpapers would be a better place for this.

(Note: I have no idea how to categorise this media- and Internet-related piece of art, so I've left the field blank. Actually, I've used a question mark.) Waltham, The Duke of 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been pondering this one for a while, and yeah, it's time to get rid of it. I don't think it's so much a notability concern, as it is a "can we really turn this into a decent article?" concern. Bliss (image) is a bit of a different story because of its use as an active part of the marketing efforts for Windows XP, as well as a number of parodies, and is much more synonymous with XP than this image is with Vista. Warren -talk- 20:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After debating with myself over keep, delete or merge with Windows Vista, this is least worst option. It gets a quarter of a million hits on teh google, but really is not all that notable. Also per nominator's argument.Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 4 October 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.