Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious company names used by Microsoft


 * 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.  Majorly   (hot!)  23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of fictitious company names used by Microsoft

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of fictitious, mostly one-off company examples used by Microsoft, with no apparent encyclopedic value. No assertion given on why any of these fictitious company examples are notable. Krimpet (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep mostly sourced and not an indiscriminate list (ie list is discriminate). Nardman1 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Three of the seventeen entries on the list are sourced; I'm not sure "mostly sourced" describes it very well. And while the list itself is not indiscriminate, as the inclusion criteria is narrow and clearly defined, the issue at hand is whether the underlying concept of the list is itself notable; I highly doubt that any independent reliable sources have been written about the significance of the example company names Microsoft uses in its documentation. Krimpet (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Soft Keep I'm leaning toward keeping this. Its not much less encyclopedic than some of the other lists here on Wikipedia.  This article is probably more encyclopedic than Companies in Atlas Shrugged, for example, even though I'm not trying to single just that one out.  Unless we should also delete that article I mentioned, I guess this should be kept. Life, Liberty, Property 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Couple of points. One, Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction, so the "rules" are a little different. See WP:FICT. Two, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason that this article should. If you think that the Atlas Shrugged list should be deleted then you can nominate it, but keeping this list because that one exists is not a persuasive argument. Otto4711 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep MS is notable enough that this list is probably appropriate. DGG 04:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not contagious -- what aspect of Microsoft's notability carries over into this list? --Calton | Talk 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest merging into Microsoft, but this is too long to be merged. There are also barely any sources that I can see, so I would go with delete but this is enough of an important topic to delete. So I go with keep, based on the process of elimination :) GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and to correct myself: Apparently the sources are in the links (they are redirects), but that still doesn't prove Microsoft owns them (it could be some random website owner pointing to MS). GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. What is the point? Who is going to find this useful, and when? It seems very crufty to me? BTLizard 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of fake names used by a company for demonstration purposes. No encyclopedic value whatsoever in this collection of trivia. The fact that Microsoft is notable does not mean that every single aspect of their training material or sales pitches is. Otto4711 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a list of trivial information.  Is it in any way notable or encyclopedic?  It seems in contravention of WP:NOT.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the cited "fictions" are notable as fictions: they seem to be slight mentions in generic company publications and software. Editors on other "list of fictional ___" pages typically remove items that fit but aren't remotely noteworthy. Feeeshboy 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I actually got some of the content of this page from an earlier Wikipedia page, and I updated the content as well as adding more company names. I think it's informative enough to be kept, but it could maybe do with a bit of cleanup and sourcing. Rubena 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability of this aspect of Microsoft's business. There don't appear to be multiple non-trivial references. This is not information one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. This would surely be of little interest or practical use to many people. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - a compendium of mostly sourced trivia. -- Whpq 21:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Microtrivia -- and I mean that in more than one way. --Calton | Talk 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unbelievably trivial. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivia list. Gazpacho 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is useful for those of us in the (IT) industry. Many of the examples given are pervasive company names that one comes across often. It is worthwhile to be able to identify both the origin and the fabricated nature of these companies. When troubleshooting, one doesn't want to be sidelined into trying to fix the Terranova database. btw could somebody add a Terranova reference? Also helpful is any shorter URL that can lead (from a client's PC) to microsoft.com. Can anyone beat Contoso? Sorry; my login details aren't available and I don't want to create multiple a/cs. Biffo.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.143.149 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No value. Arbustoo 05:25, 29 April 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.