Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Rot


 * 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 Criticism of Microsoft Windows.  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows Rot

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

Is this a hoax? Otherwise, what notability does it show? I don't see any.  TheAE  talk / sign  05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a hoax. There are plenty of people who beleive in Windows Rot. This article doesn't claim it exists for sure, just defines the words and the theories that go along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portew (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but source. See .  AnyPerson (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but needs source and possibly runs afoul of Original Research, possibly merge with Criticism of Microsoft Windows, a woefully barren article. Aurush kazeminitalk 06:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurush kazemini (talk • contribs)
 * Delete (but without prejudice to the later creation of a sourced article created on the same topic): pure WP:OR. This is most probably a real phenomenon, and may be covered in reliable sources somewhere, but if an up-to-scratch article is ever written on it, it will need to be written from scratch. HrafnTalkStalk 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My understanding is that "Windows Rot" is explained mostly by the accumulation of gunk in the Windows Registry, and possibly also by disk fragmentation.  The subject should be covered, but we already have those articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Current article is purely original research. Looking over the Google news links provided by AnyPerson, I fail to find multiple, third-party, reliable sources; most are blogs or forums, others mention the term in passing, or are about windows. The term seems to be used quite often online in forums and blogs, but there is not enough for an independent article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; any material salvageable by sourcing can be included in Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Microsoft Windows, etc.Simon Dodd (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. This is certainly a well used term, as a quick Google search will confirm. I found a book reference also. But I think it is best covered within the Criticism article, with a redirect for readers. I was surprised to find how short the Criticism article is! the wub "?!"  20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the wub - this subject area is covered adequately elsewhere, and there's nothing here that need detain us re merging - I'm sorry, but as soon as the words "this would explain why x would not occur on Unix systems" appears in a computing article, then it's time to peep into the /usr/sys/POV folder - IMHO... --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Registry bloat. References: bloated registry entries, Prevent Registry Bloating, InformationWeek, InfoWorld, Washington Post, and many more. &mdash;Noah 05:32, 23 January 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.