Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Calendar

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

Does not meet WP:GNG requirement; specifically, there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary source; just passing mentions when the subject is Windows Vista itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (or redirect in case of a "delete" outcome): Did you even read the references I added? The sources in question focus specifically on the subject of this article! This is the very definition of a knee-jerk nomination. Furthermore, this is definitely a plausible redirect (to Features new to Windows Vista, of course), and so should have been nominated for merger instead! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added even more WP:RS for good measure. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now added page numbers for several of the books (unfortunately, some of them don't seem to have page numbers in their digitized versions). Let's take a look:
    - Windows Vista Feature Focus: Windows Calendar - online article but clearly lengthy
    - Windows Vista: The Definitive Guide - 14 pages
    - Microsoft Windows Vista: Complete Concepts and Techniques - 12 pages
    - Mastering Windows Vista Business: Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise - 7 pages
    - Sams Teach Yourself Microsoft Windows Vista All in One - an entire chapter!
    - Tricks of the Microsoft Windows Vista Masters - approximately 3 pages
  - You're telling me these sources don't qualify as significant coverage? Is this a joke? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dogmaticeclectic who's added reliable sources. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - To be honest do we need articles on every single Windows App ? .... I think not, I actually misread the article thinking it was the XP calendar hence the Keep. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reasoning sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not at all, We just don't need articles on every single app. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deletion reasons should be policy-based! Is there a policy that supports that view? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes ... WP:COMMONSENSE my friend!, Questioning my !vote isn't helping you or I you know and since this is leading no where I won't be replying anymore!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, so it isn't policy-based then? Very well... I hereby request that the closing administrator disregard your opinion in this discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not every !vote has to be policy-based you know .... Don't you think there's better things to do here then argue over a vote seriously?.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Dogmaticeclectic committed Wikipedia:Bombardment instead of establishing notability – a mistake that many newcomers do. "Lots of URLs" does not mean "significant coverage". These sources are mostly verify nothing except the existence of the app. Notability means impact. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:FleetCommand, please take another look at the sources per my bolded statement below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Codename Lisa: indeed, depth of coverage is lacking. (The only exception is Paul Thurrott's article, which can't be used for the purpose of establishing notability of Microsoft products because the author reviews related subjects in indiscrementate manner.) I wouldn't oppose selective merge into Windows Vista, but I'm afraid it is impractical per WP:WEIGHT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:czarkoff, please take another look at the sources. Every single one of the books I added as sources contains pages upon pages on this topic! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, the basic principle of WP:N is that Wikipedia editors don't decide on notability of subject, but instead use reputable opinion on such matter – if the topic was found worth mention in reliable sources, it is good for Wikipedia. The books you point us to don't indicate any opinion on the matter – they simply walk through all features of Windows Vista in indiscriminate manner – so that they are not supporting "keep" view. P.S.: it would be very nice of you to avoid using bold typeface for whole sentences. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @User:czarkoff: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That's taken directly from WP:GNG. Where in that do you see any mention of opinion whatsoever? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you kidding? The whole document is about it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        User:czarkoff, I was unable to find what you are referring to. Would you mind providing a quote, as I have done above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is your quote: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." See WP:INDEPENDENT for details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because someone doesn't "need" an article to be here doesn't mean it should not be included. There is obviously plenty of significant coverage here. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to and guide books are not really "independent" or "secondary" sources for the purposes of notability. Just because the component exists it does not require an article about it, and in fact with as little as can be said, can be included in the Vista article about installed applications. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although sources exists they arent showing notability just that the subject exists. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 30 May 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.