Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Windows

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 merge to Microsoft Windows. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Windows

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

Article does not establish notability required by WP:N. A run-of-the-mill screen saver is unlikely to have ever received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Books on Windows do mention it, but the coverage is both trivial and quantitatively small; furthermore, they do it to make their coverage of Windows more comprehensive. (They only make Windows more notable.) Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The flying windows screen savers is not run of the mill. whether it's independently notable or not is a bit of a borderline question in my opinion, but as screen savers go, it's quite significant: default screen saver for an (unfortunately) major OS. --Slashme (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A binary ripple effect that millions of screen savers implement is, by definition, run-of-the-mill. But I don't even know why you bother commenting on this part of the nomination at all. As for being the default of something, we delete articles on "default"s left and right when lack of notability is shown. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar is an example. For a example of a "default" that has notability, please see Bliss (image) article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing to keep the article, just pointing out that the use of the term ROTM was a bit off-target here. In fact, looking through Google Books, I see it mentioned everywhere, but discussed in depth nowhere, so I think it probably does fail the WP:GNG. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Microsoft Windows: Current article makes no claim of notability independent of Windows itself, and lists no independent, reliable sources. A review of Google Books hits finds no in-depth coverage, just ubiquitous passing mentions. --Slashme (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Microsoft Windows. There's no reason to keep this article on its own. George8211 / T 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Microsoft Windows. James500 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 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.