Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage share of operating systems


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Usage share of operating systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT Information is by definition constantly out of date. Not an encyclopedic topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It might make sense to move info to pages on individual OSes/topics - e.g. it's reasonable in Windows 7 to discuss its comparable market share; same for Android, etc. But I think historical data on OS share would be an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even when not up to the minute current, the article can show long term trends, and changes over history. The topic is by itself covered well enough to have its own article, and is an important aspect of our coverage of the topic of operating systems.  — daranz [ t ] 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this article seems much more up to date and better sourced than average in this project, although that is not sufficient reason by itself. As above, historical data seems fine, and the OS-specific articles seem to get unwieldy pretty quickly. Although with the divergence in platforms over the past few years, there is a bit of subject creep in this one. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. W Nowicki (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is the least out of date for Web clients and Summary (I maintained it for years each month). I agree that we should complete with historical data and not only *spot* data. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. 20:44, 8 November 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.24.147 (talk)
 * Keep. Even if the article is a bit heavy on statistics and somewhat out-of-date, it can still be fixed.  This is a common topic in tech journals, and it would be easy to write an article that went more in-depth.  I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty useful.  At the very least, I think the usage stats should probably be merged into the appropriate articles (Linux, Microsoft Windows, OS X, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Article is inherently too close to the topic. Wikipedia was never intended to be a news site always reporting the latest statistics Useerup (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If it can be re-written to incorporate both long term trends and the most recent data it may prove useful and of interest, at the moment it looks as though large parts are just whatever was the most up-to-date info available at the time, and is now somewhat out of date. I would volunteer to comprehensively re-structure it myself, but I have not been able to find sufficient reliable statistics, not knowing where to look. Alternatively, if it is too small and unecyclopaedic a topic to warrant its own article, perhaps a section within Operating System? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Intersting and useful! --91.229.57.240 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. All Wikipedia articles are potentially out of date - but not nearly as badly so as in a print encyclopedia. There are many people who work together keeping this information as clear and as up to date as possible. As time goes by, the article becomes more interesting and encyclopedic as older information is condensed and summarised to make way for new, developing a background level that provides more richness and de[pth for the reader. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Helpful information, lots of of sources - no reason for deletion. 92.225.88.125 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 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.