Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booting process of Windows NT Setup before 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. Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Isn't this rather close to a WP:NOTHOWTO page? It just describes what happens, where to find things, what keys to use... Not what sets this apart, what is its history, how it was received, ... Basically, it is a "plot summary", a manual, instead of an encyclopedic article. No idea if the latter is feasible here, but even then WP:TNT would be better than trying to turn this into an acceptable article I think. Fram (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is similar to articles like Booting process of Linux and Booting process of Windows NT before Vista where it has a parent page, Windows Setup, and the article offers more detailed information on how the process functions. I don't really see the issue with having the booting process on a separate article considering how long it is compared to the size of the parent article. Alternatively, since I created this article out a section that was located at Booting process of Windows NT before Vista, it could work as a section of Windows Setup, which would be a better place for it than that article. – BrandonXLF (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista – BrandonXLF (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources; nearly all of the sources are primary and the one source that isn't ("Windows 2000 server professional reference") is pointing to a page number that doesn't exist, and I concur parts read like a manual. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic receives very substantial coverage in Boswell's Inside Windows Server 2003 and Inside Windows 2000 Server from Pearson's New Riders imprint, Boyce's Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Advanced Technical Reference from Person's "Que" imprint, and less detailed but still substantial coverage in Gardinier et al.'s Windows 2000 Complete Reference from McGraw-Hill. Notability seems solid, but that leaves the concerns about the article's tone. IMO, the article reads more like an encyclopedic technical article rather than a user instruction manual. I'm personally a big fan of obscure technical articles and wish we had more, though I know they're not too popular. Fortunately, WP:TECHNICAL is pretty lenient on "intrinsically complex" topics like this. The article has some flaws and does read like a guide at times, but it doesn't merit deletion. DFlhb (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also large amounts of uncited, unverifiable content, primary sources and do we really need to memorialise the boot up sequence of a defunct operating system? There are other places to perhaps preserve that experience, I don't think WP is one such. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DFlhb. Primary sources from Microsoft need to be replaced by those book sources, however. I may attempt to do so later. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I have seen from the articles written by @DigitalIceAge:, they know how to get excellent sources about (older) computing subjects. I also saw some sources that could be utilized. This subject does meet the WP:GNG and should be kept. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (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.