Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows XP visual styles


 * 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. At any rate, no consensus to delete, but I think that continued discussion over whether this could be merged might be fruitful.  Sandstein  11:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Windows XP visual styles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The documentation of the various themes in XP is given only by primary sources; while the nature of XP's theme is described in the main article, there's no source that requires a separate article to break down each included theme, particularly as there's no comparison or constract between the themes given which would require secondary sources. M ASEM (t) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Masem Werieth (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Nomination seems more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article includes multiple secondary sources and is the result of several similar articles being combined as well as splitting of content from Windows XP. The aim here seems to be the removal of several images that provide a visual comparison of the different visual styles. The article itself is encyclopaedic. I see no reason why it should be deleted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are secondary. They document the existence of the themes, but make no further comment on them, making them primary. --M ASEM (t) 16:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. The following sources are used in the article:
 * http://www.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Enhancements/Themes/Royale-Theme-for-WinXP.shtml
 * None of those are primary sources. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They make no attempt to compare or contrast the specific themes; that type of transformation is required for an article to be considered secondary for a topic per WP:PSTS. An tech article that explains how to switch themes is not secondary about themes. --M ASEM (t) 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your assertion is incorrect. They all constitute secondary sources according to PSTS. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These articles do not fit this requirement: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" And because these are clearly not tertiary, they are primary. Third-party primary, but primary nevertheless. --M ASEM (t) 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Third-party primary" is a contradiction. By definition, a third-party source is entirely independent of the subject being covered. A first-party source is a primary source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are ones that reiterate information without comment or transformation. Most newspaper articles covering worldwide news are third-party, primary sources - they aren't the originators of the information, but they aren't transforming the information. The same is true here - these sources identify XP themes (including specific ones) exist, but make no further comment on specific themes. Some may be secondary about the concept of theming XP, or as CL suggests belong, the general look of XP compared to previous versions, but these individual themes lack secondary sources for a separate article written and illustrated in this manner. --M ASEM  (t) 17:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I would prefer, in the tradition of Windows Aero, re-doing this article to be about the overall visual design of Windows XP. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should certainly be expanded to do that, which is a reason for keeping it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an acceptable solution if it can be shown the XP non-classic theme is notable as it owns, but this still would not require iterating through each of the variations in color from that theme (we don't do that for Aero, for example). --M ASEM (t) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable I think and that is the primary item we should be assessing here. Windows XP had a very different visual style than previous versions of Windows and while this article doesn't cover that currently, it could be expanded in that direction.  I don't know for sure, its been a long time, but if I recall there was quite a bit of third-party coverage of that.  On the note of primary vs secondary, I would also agree that the sources in this article are secondary sources generally.  A compare and contrast between the themes would be nice if we can find a source for it.  Personally, I'm sure one exists somewhere.  I would keep and improve this article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are ones that reiterate information without comment or transformation. Most newspaper articles covering worldwide news are third-party, primary sources - they aren't the originators of the information, but they aren't transforming the information. The same is true here - these sources identify XP themes (including specific ones) exist, but make no further comment on specific themes. Some may be secondary about the concept of theming XP, or as CL suggests belong, the general look of XP compared to previous versions, but these individual themes lack secondary sources for a separate article written and illustrated in this manner. --M ASEM  (t) 17:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I would prefer, in the tradition of Windows Aero, re-doing this article to be about the overall visual design of Windows XP. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should certainly be expanded to do that, which is a reason for keeping it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an acceptable solution if it can be shown the XP non-classic theme is notable as it owns, but this still would not require iterating through each of the variations in color from that theme (we don't do that for Aero, for example). --M ASEM (t) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable I think and that is the primary item we should be assessing here. Windows XP had a very different visual style than previous versions of Windows and while this article doesn't cover that currently, it could be expanded in that direction.  I don't know for sure, its been a long time, but if I recall there was quite a bit of third-party coverage of that.  On the note of primary vs secondary, I would also agree that the sources in this article are secondary sources generally.  A compare and contrast between the themes would be nice if we can find a source for it.  Personally, I'm sure one exists somewhere.  I would keep and improve this article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with "Features new to Windows XP". Hi. I understand that although Masem is not the best writer when it comes to composing xFD or NFCR, his judgment is often far more sound. In this case, the assessment of "none of the sources are secondary" is entirely wrong; 6 out of the 10 footnotes provided as of Special:Diff/613162860 are secondary sources. But the article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and has unreferenced claims. Merging with "Features new to Windows XP" solves the problem. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't support a merge. While the individual styles are new, visual styles were available in prior versions of Windows. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It covers all the hardware+software design for embedded system. Plus subject is notable and good coverage A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 17:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - Certainly notable, Just perhaps needs more sources. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that Windows XP has themes is notable, but the individual themes are not shown to be that to require the breakout given. --M ASEM (t) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - wide coverage by reliable third-party sources. Also per ViperSnake151. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability requires coverage in secondary sources, which none of these are. --M ASEM (t) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The community would seem to disagree with you on this. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are secondary according to the definition you quoted in the discussion above at 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC). --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are not secondary sources. Just stating the existence of a theme is primary-source reporting. (There is a different between primary/secondary, and first-party/third-party). --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition of primary sources, which are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." A third party source that is not close to the event is not a primary source and, as I've already said, the community seems to disagree with your opinion on this. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A tech reporter describing available themes in XP is "close to an event" (they are describing what they see) and thus is primary. And they certainly do not fit the definition of secondary. --M ASEM (t) 16:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not what is meant by close to an event. If you use that reasoning then EVERYONE in the world who has ever looked at Windows is a primary source. That includes Steve Jobs. A tech reporter describing available themes in XP is "an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", so it's most definitely a secondary source. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are describing the difference between a first-party and a third-party. The distinction between a primary and a secondary source is how the topic is discussed in the source - this is what WP:PSTS says. If you, as a third-party, says something exists, that's a primary source. If you, as a third-party, say that this exists but it is a worst option compared to something else for various reasons that are given, that is a secondary source. That is how we interpret these sources. This is a very common error that happens by editors that make the confusion that primary/secondary is the same as first/third-party. They are two different things. --M ASEM (t) 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By your own reasoning, none of the sources listed above are primary sources. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, none of the sources expand on the mere existence of the theme. There is no analysis, criticism, or transformation of information, elements required for a source to be called secondary. They are primary, simply stating information without comment. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at the sources? I guess not because this one, for example, compares different themes and discusses things such as "the 'Start' button's hover and active states". It doesn't simply identify the existence of the theme. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not anywhere close to a reliable source, being an SPS. --M ASEM (t) 05:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See reply in the . --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite agree with your reasoning. Theme is purely notable and is accepted by majority, good coverage in given sources plus in google search. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Masem: To the contrary, almost all of the third-party sources cited in the article offer the analysis, criticism and/or transformation of information required to confirm them as secondary. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The sources are secondary to the topic "How theming works on Windows XP" (eg as noted above, they are supporting an article that could be taken like Windows Aero). But the sources are primary to the topic "Specific themes of Windows XP", which is a far different concept, and unnecessary if no sources discussed the individual themes in any detail, which they don't. Now if someone wants to rework this article to be like the approach of the Aero article, that might be something but no one is stepping up to the plate to do that. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are secondary to the topic of individual visual styles for Windows XP, in addition to being secondary to the topic of how visual styles work on XP. Consider, for example, these quotations from a small selection of the sources in the article:
 * "The bright colors of the "Luna" interface led to it being swiftly labeled a "Fisher-Price" or "Teletubby" operating system." –Ars Technica
 * "You would have noticed that the default themes of Windows have always contained unsaturated colors for different elements. This is especially so that you do not stress out your eyes." –Bright Hub
 * "Windows XP greets users with the new Luna interface, which looks a lot like Macintosh OS X and keeps most of Windows XP's complexity under wraps. [...] The Luna Start menu consists of two columns and emphasizes functions rather than individual programs. [...] The garish Windows XP theme has large buttons and rounded corners, which seem like an overeager attempt to make Windows look cooler than it really is." –PC Magazine
 * "The new Windows XP Zune theme is here, and it is hot. You might mentally compare this theme to Royale Noir, it does look a bit like it, but it's not." –Download Squad
 * As you can see, all of these reliable sources give their opinions and interpretations of the particular visual style(s) that they are discussing. Some of them compare one visual style against another, while others compare it to other operating systems' themes, as well as non-software user interfaces. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These have all been added since the AFD, and I do agree these better source the concept of the themes better. But they weren't there at the start. --M ASEM (t) 17:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More specifically to those that AussieLegend suggested were secondary (the main ones that had sourced the article then at AFD), these are in the right direction compared to the previous given ones. --M ASEM (t) 17:07, 22 June 2014 (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.