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 delete, the article itself, and the sources, explicitly say that there is no evidence that this phenomenon exists. --- Deville (Talk) 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows rot

Three sentences pretty much cover the basics: neologism, uses a blog post as its primary source and ends admitting the phenomenon is anecdotal and speculative. Daniel Case 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to computer senility. --Merovingian - Talk 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with computer senility. I like the term Windows rot but have to agree that by itself it doesn't appear to warrant an entry. Williamborg (Bill) 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - there must be some better references to be found, as I'm sure anyone associated with PCs has heard or used the term in description of a system that "just doesn't work as well as it used to". Ace of Risk 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge to computer senility. Very unlikely to improve considering it is a recent, pointless neoligism. RN 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge as RN stated above. CloudNine 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless neoligism, huh? Considering that it is a common diagnosis of exclusion with computer technicians, I would hesitate to call it "pointless". However, I concur that it is a neoligism at this time, and consequently agree with the article's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.34.243 (talk • contribs).

• Keep 746 Google hits, and from personal experience I've heard IT people talk about it for quite a few years. If the article ends up educating the reader that the phenomenon doesn't exist, that itself would be useful. Kla'quot ^Sound 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 200 unique, all to blogs, and some talking about "window rot", a different phenominon :). If one were to use reliable sourcing guidelines for this article which they would, all you would have is the quote from the eweek article, which is a best a dictionary definition. Its basically a protologism. If someone can come up with more than a single article I'd be more convinced... RN 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Never heard of Windows rot... This should be merged with bit rot (82,500 Google hits) or cruft (1,870,000 Google hits) - both of which are a better fit. 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge as mentioned above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:45, 10 September 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.