Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Help and Support Center


 * 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 no consensus. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Help and Support Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This one-line permanent stub suffers from lack of notability and lack of contents. It is run-of-the-mill, not something that stands out and becomes notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there seems to be some room for improvements, . Usually we don't delete articles just because they are short. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMANUAL. And we do delete articles because they are not notable. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMANUAL is irrelevant. It says that Wikipedia articles are not in themselves instruction manuals, not that they can't be about instruction manuals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And incorrect too. Manuals only contain manual-like instructions. You can cite a manual only when you want to write a manual. Otherwise, the only thing you get out of a manual for Wikipedia is passing mentions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a restriction on citing a manual it still doesn't mean that we can't have an article about a manual based on non-manual sources, such as the ones found by Vejvančický's searches. That's really not a difficult concept to grasp, so please try do do so rather than continue to argue about an utterly irrelevant policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. Hypothetical nonsense nobody cares about. The truth is, the article has stayed a worthless one liner because it cannot possibly become anything else. Vejvančický didn't find source; he has found a lot of search engine hits and is doing a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. Lots of trivial mentions don't make the article notable. If there was really something usable in those source, you two wouldn't have wasted time improving it. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If I say "Blah, blah, blah, blah" does that trump your "Blah, blah, blah"? Let's discuss this like adults rather than get into playground name calling. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For once I actually agree with CL on this, I mean what more can you say about a Help and Support center? If 86.17.222.157 has some ideas, let's see a list of them. Why don't you take the time, 86.17.222.157, to make this page longer?  WikIan - ( talk )  22:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The searches linked above by Vejvančický find loads of coverage in independent reliable sources, showing clear notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my list about the sources below.  WikIan - ( talk )  23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Recently added sources continue to provide no evidence of notability on this subject. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The external links in the article show significant coverage in sources from John Wiley & Sons, Peachpit Press, and Cengage Learning. How do they provide no evidence of notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies here for it is not written like a guidebook or manual. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator did not check for reliable sources, even a quick Google book search reveals many. Simply because of lack of sources currently in the article is not a reason to judge notability of a subject. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did check. All I find is passing mentions. This, this, this and this are not evidence of notability.
 * My nomination does not even have a reference to WP:NOTGUIDE but it does apply because 86.17.222.157 proposed improving the article with guide-like contents. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the sort. And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that and  linked, so it still seems that you did not check those sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "And none of the random web sources that you linked was found by the book searches that and linked". Wrong. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This obtuseness is getting extremely tiresome. Just look at the sources that you linked above and tell us which of them is a book that can be found via this or this search? Multiple editors are showing you where sources can be found but you persist in refusing to look there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the Vejvančický's first link and picked the first four search results. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And my comment, which you falsely claimed to be wrong, was clearly about Vejvančický's and Champion's book searches. It's very difficult to conduct a civil discussion when you don't take any notice of what anyone else says and wrongly accuse people of lying. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete It may be notable, but it would best be put here. This article was created in 2009 and has not been updated very much since then. If placed with a larger article, it may be updated more frequently. Additionally, I believe this feature was removed in Windows 10? It was augmented with the Help+Tips app in 8.1, and I can't find it anymore in 10. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  WikIan  - ( talk )  15:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a very bad idea. If this was simply incorporated into the list article (where, of course, it should be listed) any expansion would be rightly resisted as undue emphasis. I haven't used any version of Windows later than Windows 7, but whether this feature exists in later versions would only be relevent if this article was intended as a guide for users of current versions of Windows, which it is not. Notability does not expire, and we keep articles about notable topics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, notability doesn't expire, but I'm positive it doesn't have notability in the first place. At least to justify it's own article.
 * The cited web sources only talk about a single bug! Is that what you want an article to state? A single bug? That doesn't justify an article, that is for a news article. There simply isn't enough to explain what it does or what to do with it.
 * The book sources include exactly one page on how to access it and how to use it (which we cannot put in the article do to WP:NOTMANUAL
 * One of the sources points out the anatomy of the help center, which isn't good article content
 * The Other source has a HALF a page on how to start the center, which isn't article content either.  WikIan - ( talk )  23:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So I take it that you've looked at the 96 book sources linked by Vejvančický and the 6,650 linked by Champion? Or has Codename Lisa's role as the editor who refuses to engage with what other editors are saying in this discussion been passed on to you? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Even if I did look at all "96 book sources", I'm pretty sure they would all say the same things that the first few sources do. How and when to use the Help and Support Center, nothing more. Furthermore, I doubt anyone else has access to all of these books and am willing to even say that no one will buy these books for the sole purpose of adding any feasible amount of information (which I'm sure doesn't exist) to this article. If you could come up with a list of items YOU would add to the article, I would be happy to read it.  WikIan - ( talk )  19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A quote "If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete." You have not demonstrated what content is usable.  WikIan - ( talk )  21:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What content in the article is not usable? We don't delete or merge articles simply for being short. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha! That's what I am talking about: Ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essays that aren't in your favor! Yes, we do merge pages because they are short.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 07:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually in my list above, 86.17.222.157, I DID demonstrate how your provided sources can not be used. YOU have yet to list how there IS notable information that can be used.  WikIan - ( talk )  19:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as not notable, per and WP:IMPACT. And let's not forget WP:SIZERULE that must be observed even in the event this article is kept. (A "Keep" or "no consensus" verdict in AfD does not make articles exempt to existing policies.)  Fleet  Command  ( Speak your mind! ) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From, "On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." Most of the hits from the book searches linked above are books published by reliable publishers, not the kind if noise that you get from a web search. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I even need to mention it is not enough? I feel you are refusing to get the point.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 08:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not refusing to get the point, but simply refuting the arguments that have been given for deletion. Nobody calling for deletion here has given any explanation of how the very many books from reliable publishers with coverage of this topic do not constitute a pass of the general notability guideline. I would also add that WP:SIZERULE is a suggestion, and far from being policy. We don't merge articles simply for having fewer than an arbitrary number of characters. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Refuting it for who? For me. I stick to my "Delete", thank you; you are clearly ignoring parts of policies, guidelines and essay that are not in your favor. That's all you have done so far, apart from attacking people and calling them a liar while at the same time preaching them about being an adult.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 07:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor aspect of the OS, possibly redirect to something related. If nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody. We are not a technical documentation for operating systems.  Sandstein   12:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that "if nobody has bothered to expand this article in all these years, this indicates of how little importance it is to anybody" goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. What matters is whether the sources exist to write a policy-compliant article, not whether Wikipedia editors have chosen to grow it past some arbitrary size within some arbitrary deadline. Am I the only person here old enough to remember that this was proclaimed, and not only by Microsoft, as one of the most important features of Windows ME, but then pretty well universally ridiculed when people saw how useless it was? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The "further reading" section already demonstrates notability, and other types of sources are likely available, such as the one I just cited in the article. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited. WP:INHERIT. Just because a product is popular does not make its manual notable. What is there about the "who what when where why" of this manual that makes it interesting and notable? Are independent sources writing about its unique features? Was it the first online manual? No, I see nothing notable about this manual that is not really about the product it describes. RichardMathews (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:RichardMathews: Given your reasoning, I think the only way you could have made it clearer that you did not read any of the existing discussion on this page at all is if you had stated that outright. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2016 (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.