Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64


 * 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. I would encourage the original author not to take the deletion of this material personally or as some kind of judgment on the quality of their contributions - it happens to us all at one point or another. Shereth 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic list/software guide. JJL (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate, unsourced list, too small to be of any use. Possibly written just to state a point. J I P  | Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Could end up being too long to be maintainable as well. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this page because this information is not centralized anywhere on the web. I hope that with time this could be added to by people who have experienced success or failure with Vista 64. I personally need this list. When I embarked on a quest to make Vista 64 work, I could not find a list like this anywhere. I am certainly not on a mission to make a point, especially not one negative to Microsoft. I personally hope Vista 64 works, so the assertion otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

No one else has bothered to make a helpful list. Wounldn't you all like an encyclopedic reference on this matter?

It is unencyclopedic because I don't have time to write the whole dissertation myself. It is intended to be just a start.

It is too small because it is just a start.

Having said all that, wouldn't you all rather be writing something, and adding, instead of just being a bunch of deleters. Build it, don't break it down.

I can't believe you all would try to break it down before it is even started up. Or, you all would have me write a complete and cross referenced article in one fell swoop. I don't have time for that so go ahead and delete it if that floats your boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to abandon this page for now, as the work will likely be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the difference between Vista and Vista 64. If you were aware, then you would be aware of the need to know what works and what doesn't --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although it is laudable that you tried to spread knowledge, there's various ways to do so. An encyclopedia needs references, and when you post an article that's completely unreferenced and has little context, people read it nonetheless, and, apparently, AfD it. You don't have to write articles in one swoop, but you could easily do most of the work in Notepad first, it's all plain text and some simple commends here in wikiland. As the article stands now, it's hard to maintain, one could list every program ever made, and how would we check all this info? A list of 32 bit programs incompatible with v64 would have been better than including both options in one article. As it stands now, delete. Shoombooly (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I put in some of the references. There is no way I am going to write the whole thing in notepad and then import a copy ready article. I was hoping other people would see the value and start adding to the article. I see this page as a very valuable support for the Windows Vista 64 article, which I also started at the same time. I still don't see how anybody can come upon an article on the day it was started and mark it for deletion. That just boggles my mind. Is there a competition to see who can mark it for deletion first? Whatever happened to the talk page? Just boom, come along and bang it out as worthless with two words. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An article listing only the programs that don't work would be very biased, and would not be helpful to people who want to know what does work. If there was a list of software that didn't work, and someone wanted to know if a particular program works, and they didn't see it on the list, there would be no way to differentiate what works from what wasn't even tested.


 * this article could get very large, similar to, however that list is NOT specific to Vista 64. As far as I can tell, the Vista 64 list does not exist yet. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Articles that long may not be appropriate for wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac. If there's a list of what doesn't work, the rest will probably work, not that biased i think. You don't have to write a feature ready article from scratch, but you don need to assert notability in the first draft of the article, otherwise it ends up here. The first thing to consider is how your article links up with the articles already on wikipedia. Lonely long articles with little context end up here much quicker than short stubs that have context, references and links from other articles. Before writing anything at all, that should be on your mind. Also, it's debatable whether or not a list like that is encyclopedic content, it will need a lot of convincing people, and what you provided so far, apparently, didn't convince everyone. Keep in mind that we all want a good wikipedia, but that not everyone goes about it the same way, but that when there's consensus about an issue, this is usually not anything personal, and you should not get angry if your ideas don't catch on. Better find ways to make them catch on than start an angry rant, because that will just alienate everyone from your point of view. Be patient, and be resourceful. Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have used Vista 64 quite a bit. To assume that any given software works is a mistake. In my experience, getting 32 bit software to work is a moderate challenge. Anyone who has gone through the trouble that I have will appreciate having a resource to go to to find out what works and what doesn't. In todays day and age, it is likely that searchers will wind up at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many lists and tables. I see no problem with another one. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But how will you prove what works and what doesn't? It's probably all going to be original research? (WP:OR Shoombooly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not a grizzled old hand at Wikipedia. I am just someone who likes Wikipedia and is trying my bit to make it better. If you check out the references you will see that none of them are OR. I have picked content straight from the software's web site (Microsoft, Apple) or from the consensus of software support boards. This does not seem to be OR to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's true. But they should ALL have a reference. And even then, it just doesn't feel like a proper article yet. How will you link to it from other wiki articles? Shouldn't all programs have hyperlinks to their WP page, and/or homepage? What's the context of the article? How do i get there from the mainpage? That all needs answered. And even then, not everyone may be convinced, be prepared to have discussions about it with people. Shoombooly (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Shoombooly for the constructive input. Those are excellent questions. I will have to eventually provide all the links you note that are neccessary. The genesis of this article is that I had real trouble getting Vista and old programs to run under Vista 64. I don't think that I am the only one who hoped that Wikipedia could provide some help, in an encyclopedia manner. However, it seems now, that there is no one here besides myself who thinks as I do. So, it is probably hopeless. I was hoping that others would see the potential here and run with it. Instead the opposite has happened and it seems likely the article will get deleted. That seems like a shame to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as WP:NOT is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a directory. A single page that intends to list every piece of software that is available, whether or not it is compatible with 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, is hopelessly unmaintainable. There are well over 100,000 pieces of software that have been written for Windows over the years; if someone wants to find out if a particular piece of software is compatible with 64-bit editions of one specific operating system, they aren't going to come to this article to find out -- they'll either go to the article in question, or to the software vendor's web site.  -/- Warren 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not attempt to categorize so much software, just the big and interesting ones. There are a lot of lists and tables on Wikipedia, including some for Windows itself. [], [], [], etc.
 * What counts as big and interesting ones? That will differ from someone's perspective. For example, none of the s/w listed sound interesting to me. Is there anything you can suggest that would remove the subjectiveness of the definition? --soum talk 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Aside from the points raised by Warren and others above, let's just assume that it somehow can be made into a comprehensive enough listing of (in)compatible software, nicely formatted and reffed and all that. But softwares are going to be updated all the time - who's going to keep the list updated to reflect present situation? And outdated list would be more useless than no list. Also, how much purpose will the list serve? Software compat is improving day by day. Just saying a software is compatible with Vista x64 isn't useful - most probably the user is looking for the patch/version that gives the compatibility. And those are best suited for the indiv. articles - thats where the user will first look. The goal of the author is commendable, but a list in an encyclopedia isn't the way to that end. --soum talk 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fully agree with soum. Commendable goal, but as i said before, be resourceful and find another way to get the information across. Shoombooly (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, Nice idea, but encyclopedically a nightmare and legally a nightmare - every single detail would have to be 100% referenced else we could see a class action againt WP for defamatory statements, and the information would be changing hourly as new versions and new MS patches become available. --Triwbe (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that about clinches it. The consensus is clear. I vote to delete it. Delete. All of the above is noted, and the problems are surmountable. This list needs to be made somewhere, but not here. The solution to the legal problems could be to include only software programs that self declare compatibility or not. Microsoft and Apple do this, of course. Most other software does as well.

I apologise for wasting all of your time. I thought I had a great idea to improve Wikipedia. The original reasons for deletion were an assertion that had nothing to do with the need for this information, and I thought was an unfair knee jerk reaction. I imagined that KurtRaschke was on a hunt for pages to delete, and was pouncing before a real analysis of the issue. Assuming good faith was a challenge. For all the words that Wikipedia has written about not taking it personally, there is a real uncomforatble experience here, and it is not a great way to make friends. It is my opinion that Wikipedia needs to do something to be nicer to the newbies. There are a lot of people out there who could help, but if a persons experience is uncomfortable, then they won't want to come back.

Perhaps there could be something bigger than a sandbox for people to propose an article. People could fill in a form where they document the need for the article, and they could certify that the article can be made compliant with all of the "what wikipedia is not" items one by one.

My experience of rejection was uncomfortable to say the least. And it originally appeared that the rejection was for bad reasons. Eventually the analysis became complete.

Perhaps there is a better way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hey don't be so negative, you have generated a lot of discussion and hopefully we have all learnt something here (well most of us anyhow). The only way any of us find out is often by making attempts and getting rejected. Wikipedia has many many different policies, but one of the major ones is WP:CONSENSUS and it can be a bit of a kangaroo court, it's a pity some people have not read, or have forgotten civility, a core wp policy, and one I try to keep to and something others should read carefully and thoughtfully. You to can help yourself by reading as much as you can. Start with WP:ISNOT and WP:MOS, and others in you welcome message on your talk page. Don't be discouraged and Be bold. --Triwbe (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Taking the article at face value, it's something that's unmaintainable as, given the criteria, virtually any Windows program would qualify for listing, and that's thousands. An article on compatability issues with Vista is viable, but my main concern here is with maintainability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand how you feel Marcwiki9. It's not what's being said, a large part is how it's being said. Shoombooly (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I will disclose that I have a problem with articles like this in general. I feel they are unencylopedic and almost impossible to maintain.   Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 16:50, 12 June 2008 (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.