Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error Code Purple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 just redirecting but people interested can merge any appropriate content. W.marsh 22:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error Code Purple

This is an article about a non-notable computer problem that may have an impact on a number of computers made by one manufacturer if certain things happen. In response to the notability template, the creator acknowledged the questionable notability but indicated that people would think it is notable if it was happening to them, suggesting that this should be here for those looking for troubleshooting information (check talk to verify my interpretation). That isn't what Wikipedia is for. 18 search engine hits verify the very limited scope of this issue and provide no reliable coverage. Erechtheus 00:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable, no reliable sources, and the information can be found elsewhere anyway (so I'm not swayed by the lifesaving argument). Yomanganitalk 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Copy protection. Seems to be a good example about how extreme copy protection measures end up screwing over customers. --- RockMFR 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A merge would be okay if reliable sources for this can be found. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete WP:NOT a how-to guide. Besides, if you're suffering from Code Purple, how are you gonna get to Wikipedia in the first place??? (P.S. I'm joking But not on the Delete.) --Roninbk t c e # 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oops, I meant merge and condense, such that only a brief mention remained, not a how-to on resolving the issue. Regardless, the point is academic if there aren't any reliable sources. :) — TKD::Talk 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from creator: I created this as the sort of thing a reader of this top-12 website would want to see. It's borderline, but it's the sort of computer information I look up in Wikipedia myself as a reader daily - i.e., look up some obscure thing and find what info there is. Regarding "reliable sources", print would probably be the least reliable source for stuff like this - WP:RS is a guideline, not a magic touchstone of source reliability in all conceivable circumstances. Merge and redirect to Copy protection is fine by me. Heck, delete is fine by me. I suppose we could wait for a class action suit, c.f. E18 error - David Gerard 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think this is notable. JIP | Talk 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I personally dont see how this article is notable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Copy protection. Not significant as its own article, but could be a valuable tidbit of info for techs/users. --Neo 05:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to say, even though this is not notable, that the information could be genuinly useful to somebody. HighInBC 18:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki is not Google. - Corporal Tunnel 20:06, 18 October 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.