Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Screen of Death

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 of the debate was speedy keep --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Screen of Death

Non-notable. We have not a article about Microsoft Windows start-menu or control panel - so why should Wikipedia have a article about blue screen of death? This is a obvious attack page. A alternative is merging into Microsoft Windows, but i propose deletion. —This unsigned comment was added by 1() (talk • contribs) .

• Strong keep - the "blue screen of death" is legendary and a well-known computing term. Unlike the Start menu or control panel, it is not an "official" part of Windows, and is thus more difficult to insert into the main article. Possibly we could NPOV it by inserting something about similar problems in other OS's, but I dunno if that's neccessary. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is that the right capitalization for the article name? No idea. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Microsoft Windows. --Off! 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge that. Fdp 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wandered on to here - why would an encyclopaedia not have an article about the way Windows computers crash? Windows computers crashing have a great impact on the economy. The Golux 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable characteristic of Windows, and explains the difference between the various blue screenas. It's been specifically mocked/referenced in many places. The article could possibly be trimmed a bit, but there's probably too much useful information here for a straight merge into Microsoft Windows. — TKD::Talk 16:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Relevent information about the Winodws OS. Could be renamed to remove the possible attack on Windows, however the current name needs to be mentioned somewhere. --Scohoust 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The BSOD is well-established in computing circles, and certainly not an unimportant, esoteric phenomenon. Besides, the article is "ecumenical" enough to list similar error screens for other operating systems. --Tachikoma 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see that. Excellent. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know about everyone else, but there are lots of occasions when I come to wikipedia for a quick explanation of some phrase or allusion that I've never heard before and don't quite understand. I can see a 'blue screen of death' article being useful to users. And that is the ultimate justification. Bucketsofg 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The Blue Screen of Death is certainly in the social consciousness. Certainly as notable as the related concept of Control-Alt-Delete. --waffle iron 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - All of the above. Should probably be named Blue screen of death, though. -- Egil 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Common enough expression whose meaning is not self-evident and shouldn't be reduced to a dicdef. Monicasdude 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep. the lack of an article on the specified topics can hardly be used as a basis for the deletion of an article good enough to be a FAC. Firestorm 18:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This phenomenon is so famous it has created its own verb - "to bluescreen". Calling this an "attack article" is ridiculous and makes the nominator sound like he's working for Microsoft. JIP | Talk 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per just about everyone. Even the media mentions it by this name [1]. kotepho 19:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep article, strong keep separate; everyone knows about this, and by name at that. Regarding merge into parent, Microsoft Windows is *far* too large a subject area to include every notable fact (of this level of importance) in a single article. If it's an attack point, revert the attacks. I keep reverting the addition of "Digital Restrictions Management" to the "Digital Rights Management" entry in DRM, but that doesn't mean the entry itself is invalid. Same here. Fourohfour 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, important and well-known. Punkmorten 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This screen is famous in its own right, and has a very good article.Tinyboy21 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep got two of them bastards today. Eivind^t@c 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep for all reasons mentioned above. This has been a part of computer culture for ages. This article has been around long enough for two FA nominations. Nominator should also be cautioned about making frivolous nominations. Daniel Case 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per the dogpile. Warrens 22:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I had one today. Keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although since I have a Mac I don't have to worry about this kind of stuff. :p --Khoikhoi 22:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, as it's clearly an important meme in society, far more well-known than, say, YTMND or "All your base are belong to us". wikipediatrix 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, nothing more to say here. Dan, the CowMan 01:27, 19 March 2006 (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.