Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Transformation Pack (3rd nomination)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Transformation Pack[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)

No coverage outside blog-like sources like ZDNet or Softpedia or magazines. Looking at the previous AfDs for this article, there has been no reliable sources provided by the participants. No evidence of any long-term significance as project was short-lived. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows Vista. I don't think it's notable, but the previous discussions note that this is a not uncommon search term. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I don't think so, it is not a component of Windows Vista, but rather third party software, hence such a merger would be plainly trivial. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  This article is relevant to the reception of Vista because people are trying to get other OSes to look like Vista. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Champion. It's sufficiently dissimilar to Vista that a merge/redirect would not make sense in this case. --John M Wolfson (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Neutral nom at first reading nomination seems to ignore/contradict findings of 2nd nomination when people possibly had better access to offline resources. And while of lesser relevance now it is a record of what was important at the time. Ideally i'd like it updated, release history summarised into prose and expired PROD Seven Transformation Pack merged. I do occasionally like to read this sort of stuff. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given Modernponderer's comments I took another look. I'm by no means clear there is any copyright violation on Wikipedia. However there underlying website seems still going on the same transformation topic. In the end I'd have to dig a lot deeper ... and it has become too hard as the article would need a significant update anyway really to remain. I will take my vote to neutral unless something comes to sway me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:C: This should absolutely not be kept, merged, or even redirected. This project is (caveat: IANAL) a blatant copyright violation in itself, by grafting the copyrighted UI of Vista onto XP. Even if there were arguable notability from the now-inaccessible sources from the prior AfD (which there almost certainly isn't – the "sources" I found myself barely have one-line mentions) Wikipedia should never have an article like this unless the subject meets a clear and definite standard of notability, to the point that it basically has to have one. And as this project has nothing to do with Vista itself, it certainly should not be redirected to that article, let alone merged with it. Modernponderer (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I am not saying the article necessarily contains any copyright violations (though that is subject to interpretation). I am saying that Wikipedia should never report on copyright violations with even somewhat questionable notability, much like the higher standards for things like hoaxes, or even BLPs. Modernponderer (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2018 (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.