Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello. We all know that Wikipedia is neither a link farm nor a directory. Stand-alone lists are allowed, yes, but only two items in this list-class page have their own Wikipedia articles (of questionable notability). Those who want to make a few bucks out of the Windows 8 changes should consider advertising elsewhere. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep First, as the primary author of the article, I find Codename Lisa's accusation that the list is a vehicle for advertisement by the software makers to be a bit offensive. There's no way I, a single person, can possibly hold 18(!) jobs at the same time.  In fact, I don't work for any of these companies.  I am a web developer and haven't worked on a commercial Windows program in about 8 years, and that was for the ticket/entertainment industry and had nothing to do with Windows 8 Start Menu replacements. Windows 8 didn't even exist back then.  Again, I don't work for any of these companies.  In fact, if I did, why would I want to list my competitor's products?  That makes no sense.  I ask that the nominator withdraw this accusation or provide evidence that backs up her acusation.


 * Second, whether each individual item on the list has a stand alone article is irrelevant. Which policy says that this is a requirement?  There is none.  On the contrary, WP:LISTN specifically says, "individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable".


 * Third, calling an article a "link farm" because it's well-sourced is bizarre and one of the craziest reasons I've ever seen to delete an article. Articles are supposed to be sourced to with inline citations to reliable sources.  That's a best practice.  And note that every single sources used in the article are from third-parties, such as Computer World, CNET, PC World, San Francisco Chronicle, Forbes, USA Today, and many more.  I happen to believe that all content be sourced, so readers can check for themselves whether the information in an article is accurate.  I have thousands of edits to Wikipedia and not once have I ever added content that wasn't directly supported by a reliable source.  I once took an almost completely unsourced BLP and rewrote it so that it was fully sourced. That makes me a good editor, not a bad one.


 * Fourth and most importantly, the only thing that matters is whether this article meets our general notability guideline. Since the nominator has failed to address this, I will.  GNG requires an article receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  To prove that the article meets GNG, I offer the following list of secondary reliable sources:


 * IT World - 9 Windows Start menus for Windows 8
 * Delaware Online - Windows 8 woes GetStart menu sub
 * TechNewsDaily - 3 Ways to Bring Back the Start Menu in Windows 8
 * PC World - Give Windows 8 the Start Menu It Deserves
 * PC Magazine - Tip: How to Get the Start Menu Back in Windows 8
 * USA Today - How to add a Start menu to Windows 8
 * ExtremeTech - How to bring back the Start menu and button to Windows 8
 * Laptop Magazine - 6 Ways to Totally Avoid Metro and Use Only Desktop Mode in Windows 8
 * Information Week - What Windows 8.1 Must Be
 * CNET - Will 'normal' Windows users want a Start button for Win 8?
 * CNET - How to get the Start menu back in Windows 8
 * CNET - Pokki Windows 8 Start menu grabs half a million downloads
 * PC World - Sorry, Microsoft: Users really want the Start menu back
 * TechWorld - Windows 8: How to solve the Start Button dilemma
 * Desktop Review - How to Bring the Start Button Back to Windows 8


 * And note that all of these sources discuss these items as a list.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree that it's useful and so worth keeping. Yahoo agrees that the subject is notable. The Pokki article explains that the Pokki download to restore the Start menu is free, and that Pokki enables desktop applications to be built—like mobile apps—using standard web languages like HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript; Pokki has raised $21M from investors like Google and O'Reilly. Pokki's business model seems to be to make money from its app. store—already Pokki has about 1.5M users. Maybe the list needs to mention why Pokki has become the most notable. Maybe it would be better as a "Comparison of ..." article that compares features of at least some of the items listed. LittleBen (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, LittleBen. If read my nomination again, you will realize that I said nothing about notability at all. Notability a second-tier guideline. The policy that is being violated here is WP:NOT, a pillar-class policy. Please consider studying Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially its "Denying the antecedent" section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't see how this hurts anyone, and knowing these things exist is relevant to understanding the backlash caused by Windows 8's drastic UI change. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does this pass GNG? Probably. Does this fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT? Definitely. As it fails WP:LINKFARM, just like the nom says. I see a WP:ITSUSEFUL vote by LittleBen, and a wall of text by the author of the article, plus another non-policy based argument by UKER. There are two bluelinks in the article, which makes it of marginal use anyway (contrary to LittleBen's point). There are probably a thousand different start menu replacements, but a list is not required. A category may suffice, but a category with two entries is fairly pointless anyway. This list is also a perfect target for drive-by advertising. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not even close to being indiscriminate. Indiscriminate refers to unrelated or loosely related items.  Here are some examples:
 * Indiscriminate Lists of Information examples
 * Bill, 7, Orange, pedometer, three ring notebook, The Magna Carta, Jerome Lester Horowitz.
 * f,e,s,a,gh,l,2,df,4,,fd,a,df,we
 * paper clip, bleach, chewing gum, magnifying glass


 * Each of the three lists were assembled without care or making distinctions. The first, words and/or names were typed as they were thought.  The second, random keystrokes on the keyboard with intermittent commas.  The third is just an ordinary list of household items.


 * Discriminate Lists of Information examples
 * Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson
 * H 1, Li 3, Na 11, K 19, Rb 37, Cs 55, Fr 87
 * Mike, Carol, Greg, Marsha, Peter, Jan, Bobby, Cindy, Alice


 * These three lists were assembled with thought: The first is the first few Presidents of the United States, the second is the first column of the Periodic table, and the third is a pop-culture reference to The Brady Bunch.


 * See WP:DISCRIMINATE for more information.


 * With this particular article, list was assembled with thought. The inclusion criteria requires that only Windows 8 Start Menu replacements are allowed and they must have received coverage by secondary reliable sources.  So you can't just add any item to the article.  It needs to meet the inclusion criteria.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do they have reliable coverage? Yes, probably. Is it routine? Most of the time, it is. The majority of the list is for non-notable things anyway. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, perhaps not. Either way, that's not a valid reason for deletion.  Please see WP:LISTN which says that individual items on a list do not need to be independently notable.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. However, it's still a nail in the coffin of this article, so to speak. I hate the Windows 8 start menu just as much as most tech users, but that doesn't make this a valid list - Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it. I've struggled to find a single policy-based reason to delete the article, but it meets all Wikipedia policies that I am aware of.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I've cited at least one policy-pased reason (WP:NOT) that this fails (LINKFARM part), and I can argue as much that your approach is a "WP:ITSUSEFUL" or "WP:ILIKEIT" if you're going to try and brush off my concerns like this. Dthomsen8 is yet another person throwing in an ITSUSEFUL vote. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you've completely turned policy upside down. You are arguing that well-sourced articles should be deleted because they're well-sourced.  That's an absolutely insane proposition.  Articles are supposed to have inline citations to reliable sources.  See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE.  Yes, every item on the list has an inline citation to a reliable source.  That's a good thing.


 * Also, I've never said anything about "WP:ITSUSEFUL" or "WP:ILIKEIT". That was someone else.  What I said is that the article meets all Wikipedia policies including WP:GNG and that nobody has presented a valid reason to delete the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample reliable sources have been found which talk about the new menu items in Windows 8.  D r e a m Focus  00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This looks like a stub that could ultimately have the level of information found in the Category:Software comparisons articles. My reservations: in the three months since the last AfD this article hasn't demonstrated movement toward that potential, and the list of names by itself is not very informative, nor a valid WP:LIST article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. With 21 inline citations, definitely not a stub. USEFUL! Yes, I know that is not a valid reason. Anyway, I want it kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a very useful list at the moment (but there are reports that the forthcoming Blue upgrade might disable these utilities). It's harmless. I don't understand why some people want to destroy a useful resource. John259 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Question to Codename Lisa and Lukeno94: Are the latest additions to the article what you were looking for? I'm trying to create a win-win solution that will make everybody happy. LittleBen (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry but I had to remove your addition. I was trying to fix to up so it fits, but that sort of thing just duplicates content from the Pokki and as per Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists doesn't belong in a list article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Comment: I'm sorry but I don't see any reasons in the MOS page that you cite why such a very brief paragraph—that by no means duplicates the Pokki article—is not permitted in a list article.
 * The concluding summary now covers what appear to be the most-reviewed four items—and three sets of comparative reviews have been linked to the individual items, so that the reader can easily compare them and decide between them. Two other popular items, Start8 and StartMenu8, are also linked from the comparative reviews. I Googled for these top six, found—and added—a very negative review of RetroUI. Classic Shell is listed in List of alternative shells for Windows, but does not have an article of its own yet. LittleBen (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well I guess we will just have to disagree then. The MOS for lists shows that they should be lists, there is no provision for trying to pad them out with long descriptions of one of the list items to make the whole list look more encyclopedic when it isn't. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: with Windows 8 p  b  p  23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: There is not enough notable content here for a stand alone list article, so I agree that this should be merged into the Windows 8 article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that merging is the right answer either. There's plenty of notable content to write, just a lack of editors to write the content.  But Windows 8 is brand new and we have no deadline to finish the article.  I've already changed the article to use a table format.  I invite other editors to help me fill out this table.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a very useful list. And then, since this is the second nomination to delete the article, a previous attempt obviously already failed. I consider this second attempt a sort of vandalism. And just another thought... the strong language used by user Codename Lisa may be a sign that he/she has, let me put it that way, strong connections with Microsoft. --Krawunsel (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Krawunsel the remarks you have made above here need to be refactored by you as they violate many Wikipedia principles, including WP:AGF and WP:NPA. These sorts of accusations are not acceptable here. AfDs are an opportunity for the community to consider whether an article should be retained or not and are a legitimate form of debate. Attacking other editor's motives without cause, however is not. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. This a direct personal attack and is unwarranted. The last discussion is ended with a verdict of "No consensus" and therefore anyone is more than welcome to reopen if he or she feel additional reasons for deletion exist. So far, the proponents of keeping this article have done nothing better saying WP:ITSUSEFUL, attacking the nominator, or discussing notability which is not even a concern of the nomination. Krawunsel, you should stop your Hitler-like behavior: Not everyone you disagree with is a vandal. Fleet Command (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also left an WP:NPA warning on Krawunsel's talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, if anything here is a direct and unwarranted attack then it's claiming that another behaves Hitler-like. Obviously the above commenter has no idea whatsoever who Hitler was and what he stood for. Maybe he/she should have a look at Shoa and rethink his/her comment. --Krawunsel (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regardless of any tu quoque remarks, your comments above are still unacceptable here, please edit or remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Now what's more inacceptable - deriving from comments someone previously made that the person in question might be in league with a big company or hurling insults at another user comparing him to Hitler because you disagree with his opinion? --Krawunsel (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The fact that other people might or might not act inappropriately does not diminish your need to edit or remove your comments and act civilly yourself. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Fleet Command: That's an absolutely insane comment. I've asked repeatedly for someone to come up with a single policy-based reason why the article should be deleted and nobody can come up with one.  Not one reason.  So what do you expect us to debate?  Again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? The closing admin dismisses them, the article is kept and you win the day. Don't you like the article being kept? All you have to do is to be polite, write a short answer and just sit till the discussion is closed. Instead, you ramble on and on about notability (which is not even mentioned in the nomination), attack the nominator and write the glaring lie: "I've asked repeatedly for someone to come up with a single policy-based reason why the article should be deleted and nobody can come up with one." You only alienate the respectable editors who can help you keep the article. Fleet Command (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: @ Ahunt: Just because you think my comments were inappropriate doesn't make them so. But comparing another Wikipedia contributor with Hitler is ALWAYS inappropriate. That's the difference. Your apology would be appreciated. --Krawunsel (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Fleet Command: I have been polite, I haven't attacked anyone and I haven't lied. If there's a valid policy based reason to delete the article, why won't you answer the question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I do not want the article deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: BTW, accusing another editor of lying is also a personal attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I said what I had to say. I'm outta here. Fleet Command (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Windows 8. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've said previously, the nominator has failed to provide a policy-based reason why the article should be deleted. Since then, I've discovered WP:DEL-REASON which lists 14 possible reasons for deletion.  Although WP:DEL-REASON says that we are not limited by these 14 reasons, please note that the nominator (as well as anyone else) has failed to provide a reason why this article be deleted.  Again, I'm not sure what we should be discussing when nobody can come up with a valid reason to delete the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2013 (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.