Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 8.1


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.1

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per Talk:Windows_8, Windows 8.1 is treated as a service pack like Windows 7, Vista etc. It's specially for those users who find difficult for operating Windows 8, just treated as an upgrade. Also per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not a changeloga nor a random list of miscellany items. Himanis Das (Talk, Facebook me, Tweet me) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. However, I strongly support that if this article is kept, it's included in this article that 2023 is the end of this version's lifecycle. We know that:
 * Windows XP has 2014 as its end
 * Windows Vista has 2017
 * Windows 7 has 2020
 * Windows 8 has 2023

I have a big concern that people will think that Windows 8.1 has a later date for the end of its lifecycle. This article must emphasize the fact that this is only a service pack of Windows 8, and it has the same year, 2023, for the end of its lifecycle. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as a subarticle of Windows 8. The subarticle allows us to go into more detail on 8.1, and is not a changelog or random list. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove Via consensus, it was decided THREE TIMES (first, second, third) to NOT create a Windows 8.1 article, and then someone went and created it anyway. This article should be swiftly removed. 87Fan (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Windows 8 article is way too long to cover 8.1 in a proper and in-depth manner, and sub-articles are an accepted practice. Consensus can change, and 8.1 is also very different from previous "service packs" for past Windows versions (which, aside from XP SP2, were usually just a collection of relatively minor patches). ViperSnake151   Talk  17:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The main issue here is WP:GNG - whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  There are thousands and thousands of articles to establish that this topic easily means GNG.  In fact, there are so many, I won't even bother listing them here.  The other arguments invoked by the OP are based on apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and the AfD process in general.  So I won't bother explaining how the article does not violate WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO because it does not matter.  Articles about notable topics that can be improved through the normal editing process are not supposed to be deleted.  Instead, they're supposed to be improved through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Does anyone actually think Windows 8.1 should be a red link? The present material amply justifies an article on the topic. Sometimes it is editorially sensible to handle two "notable" topics in a single article. However, in this case the relevant material is far too long to be handled well in one article. Thincat (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello, everyone. Truth to be told, this article is problematic, ill-advised, badly written and created against consensus. Its subject does not have due weight and its existence potentially gives equal validity to a point of view that is not just that valid. In an ideal Wikipedia, this article should never have been written.


 * Yet, it is written and fulfills the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia that is notability and not being a fork. It should be pruned, heavily edited, cleaned up and proofread, but cannot be deleted. There will be content dispute, dispute resolution, edit war, spam, anti-Microsoft hate-inspired vandalism and perhaps a feeling that our friend ViperSnake151 held zero value for the community's advice the he voluntarily sought, but none of these are reasons enough to delete it. Let's face it: I knew this going to happen; that's why I prevented Windows 8.0's screenshot from being deleted.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It's notable enough to be included. Period. Yes, I think some parts of the article should be rewritten/improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Megahmad (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sigh. It's obvious that the article was created against a fairly strong consensus, and it's a bit pathetic that this happened - it is, however, unsurprising. Still. This is going to be a case of where consensus is trumped by various guidelines, and so, wrongly in my view, we'll be stuck with the article. We'll just be here again if we delete this; maybe next time it would be a good-faith creation, maybe it wouldn't. The only alternative to keeping the article would be fully protecting a redirect; which I don't like the idea of, and it still leaves us open to a less-than-well-informed admin getting involved and super voting or whatever. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (now or in 2023) Come on, guys. This is a sub-code of a temporary iteration of a single operating system.  Are you saying keep just because Windows dominates the market?  If not delete now, then can we delete after 2023? Squareanimal (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems sufficiently well-sourced to show notability of the subject—the notability of the 8.1 update/upgrade/version/whatever by itself. Without taking into consideration the unfortunately ignored prior consensus, this article doesn't seem like it deserves deletion.  — daranz [ t ] 13:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Windows 8.1, as many have suggested above, is certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. With substantial work on the article (a task I'm definitely willing to take on as my schedule frees up) this shouldn't even be an issue, in spite of a discussion months back which many probably had never heard of. I wouldn't call it consensus since there was zero notification whatsoever, so far as I can see, of any of the three discussions of an article split, unless I'm missing something. Jon (aka Blurred203) holler 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. 8.1 is well-sourced and is in need of an article anyway.ElectroPro (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic is notable, and it's an acceptable WP:SPINOUT of the Windows 8 article. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons stated above. I strongly support keeping this article. Yes, Windows 8.1 is a significant upgrade to Windows 8. Although it may only be an "update" to Windows 8, the subject is still notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Besides, sometimes, you need a separate article to explain things more thoroughly. People who use Windows 8.1 (like me) would greatly appreciate having a separate article to contain any information that can't be crammed into the Windows 8 article. Also, having a different article makes it easier to find, and locate the information the reader is looking for. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- Windows 8.1 is a separate OS version number from Windows 8, was reviewed as a new OS by multiple independent sources, and has so many new features that it's hard to justify calling it just a service pack. Gamer9832 (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- Windows 8.1 is a new OS. If each Mac OSX release has its own article then why can't this have one? --71.241.228.106 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who says they can? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and WP:CFORK. :) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK applies to articles on the same subject, not articles on different subjects. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and in this case subjects are different. Yeah, exactly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep- Any release of a complex operational system like the MS Windows deserves a new specific article. As uses to happen to any windows version, Win8.1 has notability and identity on its own (i.e. new and significant features) for companies, IT professionals, and common users, as well as other versions (8.2, 8.3, .., n.n) will undoubtedly do. Always good to have articles in Wikipedia exploring macro and micro details about each of them (including so those disguised under the term "service pack n", which in essence are a huge amount of very serious and not so much flaws and bugs supposedly fixed). SacredLabyrinth (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- This article shows distinct differences in reception. For example, Windows 8 in itself had mixed reviews, while 8.1 had "more positive reception." Longbyte1 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- Windows 8.1 is notable, also a new kernel is more then enough. -- Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress,   talk,  03:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major Windows revisions should have separate articles, not a bullshit "two-in-one" approach taken by the current Windows 8 entry. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a major Windows update, and it has been stated that it is not a service pack. Service packs don't do what Windows 8.1 did. Microsoft even advertises for Windows 8.1. Since when have you seen an advertisement for Windows 7 Service Pack 1 or Windows XP Service Pack 3?  173.70.56.206 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Can't see why not. Bluehotel (talk) 16:56, 3 December 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.