Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1 Update 1

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 redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1. On second thought, I changed the redirect to Windows 8.1#Updates, since the "Update 1" section doesn't exist. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.1 Update 1[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 07:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 07:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a biased content fork of Windows 8.1 § Update. It is partly copy & paste from that section (without attribution) and partly unreferenced ... stuff. I attempted to ~~merge~~redirect per WP:DUPLICATE but the author reverted on purely bureaucratic grounds. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, There was no copy and pasted content when creating the Windows 8.1 update 1 article. The article is written with facts from well known sources like Paul Thurrott from Winsupersite. I believe since anyone can edit article on Wikipedia, the article should be improved rather than deleted. There are many Microsoft sub articles on wikipedia that seem trivial but aren't deleted. I dont understand how the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article is biased also, because its written mainly in a neutral point of view. Windows 8.1 Update 1 is a significant update and is worthy of an article for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1 SOP for minor service packs for Windows OS articles; we don't need a separate article regarding what reads as a service pack. Nate • (chatter) 08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Changed to 'Update 1' redirect per Jimthing's proper suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1 (better to name the update in it's own section on Windows 8.1, so no confusion is caused on which update is which in future). There is no need for a whole new article on WP to service such a small software update. Especially as users looking for info on the update on WP, would highly likely come to either the Windows 8 or Windows 8.1 pages to find it, plus said update info is not big enough to warrant a page of its own, so can fit on Windows 8.1 quite easily without losing value – with the aid of the Windows 8.1#Update 1 redirect. Jimthing (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Windows 8.1 has an article dedicated to it, and yet its only an upgrade to Windows 8 and isn't a new version of Windows. Windows 8.1 Update 1 is an update for Windows 8.1 much like Windows 8.1 was for Windows 8 because the build number didn't change. I strongly believe Windows 8.1 Update 1 shouldn't be merged because it is a sizable update (approx. 700mb) and there is plentiful of sources that state the significance of the update. If Windows 8.1 Update 1 is nominated to be deleted, then Windows 8.1 should be as well.--Polloloco51 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we went by update size alone than every XP SP would have it's own article as they were each roughly a gig. Yet they all fit nicely under Windows XP#Service packs under their own subheadings. As for 8.1 being an upgrade to Windows 8 (note that arguments based on how other articles exist should generally be avoided in an AfD); looking over it, there is serious overlap, it might not stand an AfD actually. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the Windows 8.1 article, Update 1 is described as a major update, therefore its more sensible to for Update 1 to have it's own separate article. Also, more information will be coming out regarding the update and the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article has potential to be expanded.--Polloloco51 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Windows 8.1#Update. WP:DUPLICATE is not the only problem. There is WP:GEVAL problem and this article has zero chance of ever getting to class C state. When push for expansion comes to shove, the article naturally becomes a host for all sorts of non-encyclopedic content if not merged or deleted. We really mustn't spawn an article the moment Microsoft decides to pick its nose. The fact that taskbar now comes up everywhere doesn't really have due weight for overcoverage. Fleet Command (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources that are provided in the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article like ZDNET and Paul Thurrott of Winsupersite are highly credible and reliable sources. I think the article should be improved and as time progresses more concrete info will come out and the article will improve. I would not call sources like Winsupersite and ZDNET minority point of view, because they have been highly accurate in the things they report in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a hotfix, essentially Windows 8.1.1, as such it is not independently notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1; the update does merit a mention but it doesn't really deserve this kind of over-coverage. Moving the content back to the Windows 8.1 article makes the most sense. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per ViperSnake. Not supporting keeping a redirect because this is an uncommon search term. Reh man 13:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Windows 8.1. Keep the content, but we don't need separate articles for individual operating system updates. Elassint ^Hi 00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above; search term is not absurdly uncommon and the bar is very low for redirects, so keep the redirect. Neutrality^talk 06:01, 24 March 2014 (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.