Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions


 * 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 & cite. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions
The article Comparison of Windows and Linux is valid because they are 2 seperate types of software competing in the same market share and same time frame.But its pointless to compare a previous version of a piece of software with a modern one, because of the fact that time has past and there are newer standards which older software will naturally fail against.For example, it would be like comparing the game Pac Man to the modern Grand Theft Auto series of games.I am pretty certain that Pac Man had a much bigger impact on popular culture and had a lasting impression with its criticall sucess, but today, which one would you rather play? Rodrigue 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to see how each version has progressed from the last one. Josh the Nerd 20:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Josh

It's intersting to see how each version has progressed??.The point of article of like this is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of each product and see which one is the better choice.The article can't be validated just because its "interesting" to compare seperate versions, the fact is they are not competing products and they are in different eras of computing, meaning you can't compare them from a competitive view, so the article is pointless. Rodrigue 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Question Rodrigue, can you to say just why the article is being proposed for deletion in terms of the Wikipedia guidelines.DGG 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to cite any sources. I doubt its original research, but it would be nice if it gave credit to wherever this information came from. I'd suggest merge with Microsoft Windows. -wizzard2k ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact is it doesn't cite any sources, and whether or not you think its original research, it might as well be because it violates Citing sources.And the other problem with this article in terms of guidelines is Notability, because the page does not have any significances in what it is covering.Can anyone give an example of any other wikipedia comparison article that is about non-competing products that are made by the same organization?Rodrigue 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would have to have a deletion discussion outcome for it to matter here. Unless we can find an applicable precedent (which I kinda doubt), maybe we should just decide right here if this sort of thing belongs in an encyclopedia? I don't think we would argue the merits of Microsoft Windows' notability, and this information seemed like a logical extension of that, which is why I propose we merge it. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Currently unsourced, yes, but that can almost certainly be fixed (there are numerous pages on Microsoft's web site comparing the features of different versions of their products).  Doesn't seem to be original research (while it would necessarily be a synthesis of information from various places, it doesn't seem to advance any point, so shouldn't count as OR).  Encyclopedic value is in allowing people to see at a glance what features any individual version had, thus evaluating the progression of the OS from one version to the next. JulesH 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You say this article is about seeing the progress Microsoft Windows has made over the years, but that type of thing would be more useful at History of Microsoft Windows.An article like this is supposed to compare different things to see which is better.But it should already be assumed that the latest version of Windows is better.But I think this article is written more in the way to see the progress Windows has made over the years, so it should atleast be merged with History of Microsoft Windows, all the content fits there perfectly. Rodrigue 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Rodrigue 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't merge. While incomplete, it's potentially very useful for people doing historical research.  As to the merge suggestion, Microsoft Windows is long enough as it is without adding some extremely lengthy tables.  Someone would end up splitting it off into a separate article again anyhow.  -/- Warren 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually, neither that or this page is the recommended 32 kilobytes yet, and if nescesary a page can become pretty long, only after 100 kilobytes is it a problem, and merging the articles won't create a page anywhere near that size, and I could also suggest splitting up other sections, so your argument is completely defunct. Rodrigue 16:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to say it is a little hard to look through but it is very useful. I'm sure it can be fixed so that it can be read easier. It is very useful in the fact that you can compare editions side by side. --Chetblong 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It does not matter how useful you think it is that you can easily see and compare the versions, because that has no encyclopedic value.It should just me merged with Microsoft Windows or History of Microsoft Windows because the table is useless as an article. Rodrigue 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Cite The citations are a problem and need to be addressed, but does not appear to be original research and as it deals with the most common operating systems in the english speaking world there's no question of notability. The format avoids point-by-point value judgements regarding the subject so avoids POV issues.  Not sure why this was nominated for AfD as it doesn't appear that even the small effort of putting a citation tag on the page was done before it arrived here, and citations appear to be the only noticeable problem.  First try to fix an article.  Bring to AfD only if there's good reason to believe an article CAN'T be fixed. -Markeer 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.