Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Windows Vista

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. Paul Cyr 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Windows Vista[edit]

An entire page of criticism is not necessary or encyclopedic, especially for a product that isn't even available yet (let alone one that is). Unknownwarrior33 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is a source for fact as best we know it, this article is editorial opinion. Calling "BS" on this one. Vista has pluses and minuses, unbalanced non-facts not welcome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.54.147 (talk • contribs) — 71.107.54.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Generally you might be right, but Vista has cooked up a huge amount of criticism before its release. Merging it with the Windows Vista article would swamp an already large article. --Aim Here 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticism is perfectly encyclopaedic as long as it's written in a neutral manner and is well-sourced, as this page appears to be. Also, as mentioned above, it would be inappropriate to merge to the existing Vista article as the article would become cumbersome. --NMChico24 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an appropriate article spinout. I went in and added a {{main}} template to the top of the article, to reflect the article's child status. --RoninBK_ETC 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this sub-article as a natural part of the Wikipedia:Summary style article development process. Windows Vista is already very lengthy, and it's only going to get harder to maintain through 2007 as attention to Vista increases. Vista isn't even out yet, and we already have an article that's almost double the length of Windows XP! Yikes. Speaking of Windows XP, it does have a seprate criticism article, too: Common criticisms of Windows XP. -/- Warren 05:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. MER-C 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep provided a neutral pose & sources are provided, and it doesnt turn into a attack page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is notable, criticism appropriate, and let's leave content improvement discussions there. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A very notable subtopic of a high-profile article. There are tons of "criticism" articles out there, so even if I agreed with the nom, which I don't, then I still wouldn't have any inclination to move for a delete, simply out of custom and continuity. (|-- UlTiMuS 11:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable article with quite a few references - I can't see any reason to delete it. Hut 8.5 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the criticism is well sourced and written in a neutral POV TheRanger 13:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep criticism of beta's is fine and notable for such an anticipated software release. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well referenced article on a notable subject. Xdenizen 01:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! b/c useful and Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,
Keep. Well referenced, and not something that can be merged back into the long main article. Perhaps it can be altered to Responses to Windows Vista, including positive reviews.--Cúchullain ^t/

c 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Importance of the topic being criticized outweights the reasoning given for deletion. IgorSF 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Migrating all of the accurate information over to the main Vista article would promote unbalance; the main article would end up being more about the criticism than the actual OS. Splitting it off makes more logical sense. tendim 07-Nov-2006 (EST)
Keep Too much material to merge with the Vista article. Robovski 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - It has some citations, other major software releases have criticism pages as well. It does seem rather unwise to compile criticism for a product that hasn't even been released yet and might go against WP:NOT, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jtalledo (talk)
Weak Delete Surely belongs under the umbrella of the Vista article, do standard articles have entries specifically for the pros and cons of events/object? No; this is because such comments logically fall under the remit of the main article, issues of article length can be dealt with using proper article structuring coupled with a good TOC. 89.100.150.17 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)— 89.100.150.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep - I'm kinda ambivalent about this; OTOH, WP isn't a crystal ball, but it has generated significant amounts of controversy. I'm leaning towards keep, but we need to keep it from becoming an attack page.Veinor (ヴエノル) 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warrens and above commenters, article was created in line with Wikipedia:Summary style development process. Yamaguchi先生 06:36, 9 November 2006
Keep as criticism is NPOV, sourced, and directly relevant to the product - some of it has already resulted in changes to Vista (e.g. licencing & UAC) which would be of historical interest to some. Peter Campbell 13:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter Campbell. Mikker ^(...) 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What wikipedia rule is being violated? It cites sources for the criticisms, and to the best of my reading ability it complies with the policy of "characterizing disputes rather than engag(ing) in them". I agree that MS responses are relevant in this article and to the degree possible they should be added. However this does not invalidate the article or the article subject - it just needs work. If you see something missing, add it. chochem 20:40, 9 November 2006 (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.