Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screens of death on video game consoles


 * 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   redirect to Screens of Death. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Screens of death on video game consoles

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

Orginal research on the color of error screens Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not original, as it had been there for a while, and was confirmed by other users. If sources is what you need, I can put some up. &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Original research. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen, applied references. &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

*Keep If no one doubts the subject exist, then there is no reason to run around looking for references to prove it. A more scientific name might be preferred, but its called the screen of death everywhere. Windows 95 had an often mentioned and complained about blue screen of death.  D r e a m Focus  01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Largely original research with but one source to back it up. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep . Not that I have that much attachment to it, it just seems like something that should be on Wikipedia: an article with information and images that the world should know and see for free. &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * lol Wikipedia hasn't been about that kind of thing in a very long time. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merely existing does not justify inclusion on Wikipedia. To qualify as notable, articles must be reliably sourced and verifiable, and therefore should not contain original research. As it stands, this article cites only one source and therefore very much fails those policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Screens of Death &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Screens of Death as this may be a fork of the article. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Screens of death since its the same thing and there isn't enough information to warrant its own article at this moment in time. As long as ALL of the information is preserved, no reason not to shift it on over.  D r e a m Focus  20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Existence" isn't a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless reliable sources can be proven to exist to show its notability, an article shouldn't exist. As it stands, only one source exists, and that is far from enough to comply with the notability guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should all the information be preserved? It's almost all original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per The Junk Police. Tomdobb (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge information with Screens of Death, per The Junk Police Taelus (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (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.