Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Office v. X


 * 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. While decisions to redirect mostly duplicative content may be handled at AfD there does not appear to be consensus to redirect the article at the moment. There is also not consensus for deletion. Discussions regarding merging or cleanup are best left to the article talk page or a project talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Office v. X

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The information contained in the Microsoft Office v. X page is currently redundant to  the Microsoft Office and History of Microsoft Office pages. Article is a stub. I of course welcome more content to save the page, however, in its current condition, I suggest it be deleted and redirected to the appropriate Office pages Kiranerys-talk 04:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page as per above:
 * Kiranerys-talk 04:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:UGLY is not a reason for deletion. I have expanded 2001, will work on X tomorrow.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't twist my words around, I never referenced or used 'appearance' in my reasoning for deletion, my reason is that when I set up the Afd, there was not one single piece of information in the actual vX and 2001 pages that was not already in the Microsoft Office or History of MS Office page, so at the time, having the separate articles was redundant. Kiranerys-talk 04:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what is your reason for deletion? If you just want the page redirected, you can just set it up yourself, there is no reason for an AFD.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The information contained in the Microsoft Office v. X page is currently redundant to  the Microsoft Office and History of Microsoft Office pages. ", "there was not one single piece of information in the actual vX and 2001 pages that was not already in the Microsoft Office or History of MS Office page, so at the time, having the separate articles was redundant. " As for redirect, I was not aware of that at the time Kiranerys-talk 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Redirect to the main article, as a viable search term, with a section link. Someone can rebuild it later if they want to, with a much more substantial article than this. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 What is the point of deleting it? This package was popular, and there are many stubs that have not been deleted, like this one Android x86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Moyse (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, the article you linked to is around 4 days old, I think referencing it as one of the many stubs that has not been deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. kiranerys (u,c) 17:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep I suggest you add a cleanup tag and add more research in order for it to be kept. Goldblooded (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (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.