Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word attachments

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. --Coredesat 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word attachments

Word attachments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Originally created by a user at the same IP address as the one that created a deleted article called "Word Rage". In fact, the orginal incarnation of this article was simply a re-direct to the Word Rage article [1]. After the Word Rage article was proposed for deletion, its text was copied to this article on Word attachments, see [2]

It was noted in the deletion discussion that the Word Rage article was copied almost word for word from this web page: [3], which is part of a private list of web links by an individual identified as Father Martin Sylvester.

There are apparently only two sources for this article. Much of the article is a copyvio of the catholic site mentioned above. The other source which may have been relied upon is a POV rant promoting a petition against Microsoft, and could well be considered linkspam.

If there is anything in this article which constitutes encyclopedic content based upon verifiable, reliable sources, then it is probably already covered in Microsoft Word. Wikipedia is not a soap box. OfficeGirl 04:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: In the past three years very little has happened with this article other than vandalism and spam which has been subsequently removed. In May, 2007 one editor added a few sentences in an attempt to balance out the POV, but those sentences were not supported by references to any sources, reliable or otherwise, and those additions, in my opinion, drew even more attention to the fact that the article is tremendously outdated in addition to being unsalvageably POV. OfficeGirl 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have worked quite a lot in order to make something good out of this article. I believe it is really possible to make an encyclopedic article about a social issue: the epidermic reaction some people have when they receive MS word files, why they react so, why most people still use MS Word. Maybe some historical comments could be added (how were things before MS Word conquered the market, did those reactions changed things, how Microsoft itself reacted). However, as OfficeGirl pointed out, there is an issue about whether it deserve a separate article from Microsoft Word.Elimerl 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Elimerl, I applaud your energy and enthusiasm and willingness to work on this article. While you have succeeded in toning down the paranoid conspiracy rant that we were first dealing with, it is still a lot like an original research magazine article and nothing like an encyclopedia article. And the sources you have cited are all personal web pages, many with rantings similar to the "Word attachments" article we have been discussing. I just don't think this topic is one where we could even find reliable sources we can use as a basis for a separate encyclopedic article, even when we have a sane, non-paranoid, intelligent person like yourself working on it. But please keep working on Wikipedia articles with that enthusiasm that you've got. I'm glad we've got you around! OfficeGirl 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the Stallman article and the rest of the literature that can easily be found on the topic. The article could use cleanup, but I think the subject is relatively notable. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cut down, removing unverifiable content in particular, and merge what remains to E-mail and Microsoft Word. I'm not altogether convinced that this subject is notable enough to merit an article, but perhaps more important in this case is that the subject simply makes more sense to the reader in the context of these other articles. Jakew 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an anti-MS rant that doesn't merit its own article. Its issues could be listed as "cons" under a Microsoft Office article and "pros" under an OpenOffice (or other similar) article. --McDoobAU93 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OR, WP:COATRACK. Mystache 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A soapbox rant, thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article by adding a single advantage of using word attachments Lurker (said · done) 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is an original research essay about word attachments analyzing the benefits/downfalls. Encyclopedia should not be the place to review software Corpx 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article definitely match deletion criteria, however, I plan to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimerl (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several things that you can do to make a deletion-worthy POV essay into a successful article on Wikipedia. The first thing you might consider is "userfying" the article (making it a part of your User space, rather than publishing it right away in the main namespace). Then you could work on it without any fear that your work would be deleted in the beginning stages. See Wikipedia:Userfication. However, you would still be faced with the task of proving that there is sufficient notability for "Word attachments" to justify a separate article from Microsoft Word. I think you will have trouble on that issue. There's not a reason for a separate article, though you might enjoy improving the Microsoft Word article.OfficeGirl 08:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic. John 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete. However, the subject is fine for an article and more sources should exist. Recreate later and better. • Lawrence Cohen 18:46, 7 September 2007 (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.