Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8

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 no consensus. balanced-ish headcount, plausibly meets WP:N, has a lot of links for a stub/start article, but the article has been expanded and the inappropriate external links removed. WilyD 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is primarily a directory of external links. A previous revision tried to remove the external links, at which point the article became primarily a list of redlinks. See the discussion on the article's talk page for a dispute about whether the external links are appropriate. In any case, neither possible version of the article seems to me to merit inclusion. Noiratsi (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only one of them has an article. Also, I don't see much that can be discussed about such programs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. There are lots of articles that contain links to official web sites, such as List of software for molecular mechanics modeling per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Yet for some strange reason, these other articles haven't been nominated for deletion. I asked Noiratsi to create an RfC to see if there's community support against official links, but they declined to do so. I really don't know what to do if editors refuse to seek consensus against WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I do know that normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable given the significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, Noiratsi's nomination doesn't even make the argument that the topic is not notable. What's more, Noiratsi even approved of the article when it was created (sorry, I don't have the diff- I'll try to dig it up later, I'm going back to sleep now.) Again, this is an content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mark the page as reviewed shortly after it was created, and at the same time I tagged it for external link issues. The resulting discussion about the external links was what led me to propose deletion, but I'm sorry if I made it sound like the external links were the primary reason for this nomination. I brought the article here for discussion because list articles like this are intended to summarize already existing content for navigation purposes. The other articles you mention certainly need discussion and improvement, as I said at Talk:List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8, but that's no reason not to consider each in its own right. Since almost no content yet exists for this list to navigate, I stand by the nomination. --Noiratsi (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every list article is a navigational aid. Some are a source of information in themselves, as WP:LISTPURP makes clear. The fact that this list isn't useful for navigation isn't a valid reason for deletion. You could, however, argue that the subject isn't notable. I can only find one halfway-reliable source that has compiled such a list (this one, upon which the article is based), so this article probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for lists. I've only done cursory research into this, though, so I'll hold off on !voting for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and particularly the link to WP:LISTN, which I wasn't aware of. (I'm still learning!) How about a merge of any useful content to Start menu#Evolution for now? That section already includes a brief mention (in the final paragraph) of some of the items on this list. --Noiratsi (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Noiratsi has still not provided a single reason why this article fails to meet notability. Again, this is a content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the nomination was imprecise and I apologize. In the end though, deletion discussions aren't about whether people agree with the nominator; they're about what other people think should happen to the article. I may not have offered the best reasons, but that is why the discussion is taking place - to establish what definite grounds for deletion there may be, and to keep the article if there aren't any. As such whoever closes the discussion won't be 'counting votes' and I'm sure they'll take your defense of the article into account. --Noiratsi (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTPURP - this list serves absolutely no purpose other than to show users which programmes offer a start menu. The article is encyclopaedic and given the nature of the content which it aims to cover, there is not much more that it can cover that wouldn't be able to be covered in the article on the list of features removed from Windows 8 or the Evolution section on the Start menu article. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:42pm • 09:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as discussed on the article talk page this article seems to only have two possible modes: 1. a list of external links or 2. a list of predominantly redlinks, since only one of the subjects has a Wikipedia article. In the case of the first mode it clearly runs afoul of the policy WP:LINKFARM and probably WP:SPAM as well as it would merely exist to promote products for sale. In the second case it would be a list of non-notable subjects and therefore the list itself would be non-notable and should be deleted. In either case the article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just want to be clear that the article is a stub. Windows 8 is brand new and the article can be expanded and improved through normal editing process. Even if I'm wrong about WP:ELOFFICIAL, that's no reason to delete the article. The main issue here is whether this topic meets WP:GNG. I believe the article, although a stub, is well-sourced, and many more sources can be found. So, over the course of the next 10 days, I will be creating a list of secondary sources. This seems like a pointless exercise since anyone can do a Google News search, but if that's what I need to do to save the article, that's what I'll do.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If your argument is that the subject of the list itself is notable, even though we have no Wikipedia articles on the majority of the list items, then we get back to the result of a "keep" here being a list of redlinks. You can't have a list of external links as that votes the policy at WP:LINKFARM. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Windows 8 was just released. Of course, we don't have articles yet on these programs. What did you expect? These articles don't create themselves. We have to write them ourselves. Hopefully, we'll get editors to create them, but this is all brand new. Fortunately, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. And given that long list of reliable sources above, I'm fairly certain that we have enough sources to create stand-alone articles for many of these programs as well. But these things take time. At least I got the ball rolling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although most of the links provided above by A Quest For Knowledge are reviewing/promoting one particular Start Menu replacement app (whereas what we need here are sources that establish the notability of the list – i.e. sources that have compiled a similar list of Start Menu replacements), a few of the links are relevant. Specifically:

• IT World - 9 Windows Start menus for Windows 8
• Delaware Online - Windows 8 woes GetStart menu sub
• TechNewsDaily - 3 Ways to Bring Back the Start Menu in Windows 8
• PC World - Give Windows 8 the Start Menu It Deserves
• PC Magazine - Tip: How to Get the Start Menu Back in Windows 8
• USA Today - How to add a Start menu to Windows 8

Which is more than enough to establish notability, in my view, and I don't know how I missed these articles during my own search for sources. In response to Ahunt, and the other delete !voters, it doesn't matter that only one of these utilities has an article. From WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". DoctorKubla (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since DoctorKubla posted, I've found 3 4 5 6 7 more sources which discuss these items as group:

• ExtremeTech - How to bring back the Start menu and button to Windows 8
• Laptop Magazine - 6 Ways to Totally Avoid Metro and Use Only Desktop Mode in Windows 8
• Information Week - What Windows 8.1 Must Be
• CNET - Will 'normal' Windows users want a Start button for Win 8?
• CNET - How to get the Start menu back in Windows 8
• CNET - Pokki Windows 8 Start menu grabs half a million downloads
• PC World - Sorry, Microsoft: Users really want the Start menu back

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lists of external links, especially for commercial products for sale, are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:LINKFARM, criteria 2. The concept itself should be discussed in the Start menu article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree the external links aren't appropriate, so I've removed them. I may well be reverted, but my point is that the external links can be dealt with through ordinary editing, and aren't a valid reason for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pointless to remove WP:ELOFFICIAL links since we're going to add them back after we create individual articles. But I won't revert you. But after the AfD is closed, I'll probably open an RfC. I really don't see a problem. We're here to serve our readers, after all. Removing official links just makes the article less useful to our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a long list of external links is clearly a violation of WP:LINKFARM. Official links allow one official link on the subject of the article, not creating a list of external links. If the individual articles on each piece of software were created then each article could have an official link, but the article we are discussing here would only have wikilinks to the individual articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we haven't created those articles yet. So, it makes sense to temporarily have them until we create the articles. I don't know why you want to force the reader to Google for these programs' web sites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it clearly violates Wikipedia policy to have an article consisting of external links to products people can buy. That policy is not just bureaucratic, it was decided by community consensus long ago for a reason, to prevent exactly the sort of external link spamming you are proposing. If the choice comes down to a list of spam links or deletion, then this article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Official links are there to supplement the encyclopedic content of an article and "to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Wikipedia is not here to help people find a start menu for Windows 8; we should instead be documenting the fact that many people have chosen to do so. If people come here looking for a start menu replacement, they have come to the wrong place entirely and shouldn't be at all surprised when they don't find any links to sites containing such things. --Noiratsi (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LINKFARM. The argument that we need to provide a list of X where none of X actually exist as articles is fallacious - lists in the encyclopedia are lists of articles, not lists of external links. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article again. The external links have been removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are external links - it doesn't matter that they are formatted as references and go to PC Magazine reviews. You really need to go read this. Really. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't considered external links. Those are sources. BTW, I really don't understand this attitude that this article must be complete in order to be in article space. It's a stub. Windows 8 just came out for heaven's sake. It takes time to write these articles. I've proved that this topic is notable. Finishing the article is something that can be done through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Windows 8#Reception. The various sources lead me to conclude that the general topic of Start menu replacements for Windows 8 has received sufficient media attention to be deemed notable by the GNG, but at this point the list of replacements seems pretty trivial. I'd suggest that the list is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list, but the rapid emergence of Start menu replacements (and the list thereof) is a valid topic for inclusion in Windows 8#Reception. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, per usefulness and a strong need for this article. I just bought a new computer and was horrified by the windows 8 user interface, I couldn't even find out how to restart the computer. So I started searching for "start menu windows 8" and found that millions of other users were searching for the same thing. Among other search results I found this wp article, and noted it was threatened with deletion, and that's how I found this discussion. I don't care if you call it a linkfarm, the links in the article and this discussion have been very useful for me. The only thing I miss is a comparison between all these alternatives so I didn't have to compare them myself. Put the links in the article and this discussion together in an article called Comparison of start menus for windows 8 Roger491127 (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not the job of this site to help you find a replacement for your start menu. If people think that should be part of Wikipedia's remit, this is (in my opinion) not the place to discuss it. In other news, I do feel that the addition of a lead paragraph to the article has improved its credibility. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List topic meets the GNG, handily proven by A Quest For Knowledge. All objections so far, including the nom's, can be addressed by ordinary editing.  The Steve  22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to a lot of conversation with several kind editors in recent days I now agree that the issues should be addressed by future editing and that deletion isn't appropriate or justified. I apologise for some stubborn and short-sighted arguments. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted? Every "delete" vote is based upon a misinterpretation of WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTN, notability has been quite clearly demonstrated by A Quest for Knowledge's list of links, and the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination. Speedy close? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well referenced; nominator has withdrawn. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition, Wikipedia is not a technical manual. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nom didn't have a valid reason for deletion and has subsequently withdrawn. Can you please indicate which part of the article is a technical manual and why that's a valid reason for deletion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unencyclopedic, and not really a regular "list" because it's mostly of external links, with only one item on the list actually linking to an article. Zerbu 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, being well-referenced is actually a good thing as it proves that the topic is notable. Third, having only one WikiLink item on the list is not a valid reason for deletion. That's fine if you want to !no vote to delete it, but you have to come up with a valid reason first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And make into a suitable combination article with some text. It can't stay this way, with just links and references, but either tie present title, or Comparison on Start menu replacements ... or Start menu replacements ... it could be the basis of an article. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable, and I have never seen a guideline that says otherwise--just as DoctorKubla says. The confusion is because there are many lists, where, to prevent spam, we do make such a requirement--among these are such articles as "List of business in City X " or "Alumni of College Y" or lists of people generally, but there is also a place for combination articles. Agreed, we're not a web directory, but this can be satisfied by requiring some degree of documentation for the individual entires, as is present here. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a technicality that does not merit an article separate from Start menu. I don't see a substantive discussion of the replacements that goes above the technical stage for tips with computer usage. Hekerui (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough information to create a paragraph per item on the list. It's the holidays in the US and I just haven't had a chance to start adding it. Hopefully, this weekend I can get started on one of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be more technical information on the individual entries? I don't think that would improve the encyclopedic merit of this page. Hekerui (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a paragraph summarizing each item. I'm not sure what you consider technical but I'll try to avoid it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

• Strong keep Nominator has withdrawn, and the article can be expanded from its current stub status. —Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge into the main Windows 8 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.56.52 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This can become a useful summary article. Convert the deprecated inline exlinks to create "legitimate" redlinks where apropriate. Roger (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.