Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BadXP

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. Evidence presented indicates no such campaign prior to 2006. Article has zero sources to substantiate claims or info so a redirect appears unnecessary at this time. Pigman☿ 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadXP

contains ready to use merging in previous revision

contains ready to use merging in previous revision

Comment I couldn't find any evidence of the FSF ever hosting such a campaign. Google wasn't helpful: badxp fsf only produces 67 irrelevant results. - Sikon 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I heard of the BadVista campaign thanks to local news coverage. Evidently, the BadXP group didn't receive as much publicity in their heyday. I looked for more sources as well and came up empty. I suggest redirecting the article to BadVista. As far as I can tell, the group changed focus anyway once Vista was released. There really isn't much to the article now. --Cyrus Andiron 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir - with BadVista, under BadWindows name, transforming BadXP and BadVista into redirects. This permits to cover in future BadVienna campaign under the same BadWindows name too, by simply adding redirects such as BadVista, BadVienna, etc... and adding relevant sections to initial BadWindows article. These TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com proofs in its names including "badxp" string, that BadXP group once really existed, but since beginning of BadVista campaign it disappeared, transforming itself into BadVista group. Wikinger 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir - with/to BadVista (or vice-versa) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If BadXP is going to be merged, we will need to rename article to something like Free Software Foundation campaigns. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no evidence can be found of such a campaign, it doesn't merit mention in the encyclopedia. This includes the BadVista article. Verifiability is key. -/- Warren 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadVista is already sourced with reliable sources, the problem here is with BadXP. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen for evidence. BadVista revives their old campaign. Wikinger (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. BadVista is sourced with a reliable source that proves that such FSF campaign does indeed exist. BadXP is not. - Sikon (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even Image:BadXP no littering.svg stylistically identical to Image:BadVista no littering.svg proofs that such campaign as BadXP existed in the past and even these TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com that simultaneously include "badxp" string proofs the same fact. Wikinger (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Image:BadXP no littering.svg is unsourced, so it does not prove anything. The link http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png is broken. The two links you mentioned have no signs that point to them being affiliated with the FSF. By the way, I do NOT object to the BadVista article in its original form - I only point out that there is no proof of a "BadXP" campaign having ever existed, and thus the BadXP article should be deleted. - Sikon (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently BadXP exists in frozen state. Better would be that article that is a merging of BadXP and BadVista into single BadWindows article will exist instead. Broken link wasn't broken when I created image, and again isn't broken. Please check again, if you don't believe. Two people could not independently use BadXP name identically in the same manner, thus they could only rip off BadXP name from now defunct BadXP site. In this way these TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com proofs that BadXP campaign really existed in the past. Because of this fact they are described by me as unofficial. Wikinger (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinger, please do not perform any merge or rename without consensus. You are also changing other comments in this AfD to save BadXP, do not do it. The merge or deletion will be done by closing admin. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished your reverts where you missed. Let's admin make final merging. Wikinger (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, they could coin the name "BadXP" independently. And even if they didn't... I repeat, I see no proof that the FSF ever organized a BadXP campaign. Provide it. - Sikon (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I give you strong proof that BadXP really existed - for proof I give living link to BadVista's BadXP logo placed on their page: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen , that shows attempt to resurrect BadXP campaign again. Wikinger (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to BadWindows or FSF. Mbisanz (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look here: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen for evidence. BadVista again restores their old campaign. Wikinger (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit making shit up, Wikinger. You're doing the encyclopedia a disservice by continuing with your insistence, and you are wasting your time. There was no BadXP campaign. That BadXP image you are linking to precisely matches the BadVista logo style that was designed in 2006; this is because it was adapted from the BadVista design to "remind us that Windows XP also has activation".[1]. Searching fsf.org for "BadXP" produces precisely zero hits that predate the BadVista campaign.[2] You can check all the FSF mailing lists, press release archives, and blogs you like... you aren't going to come up with anything. -/- Warren 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the link you asked me to look at, I still believe the topic lacks notability and should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed all campaign-related terms to logo-related terms to be in accordance with your opinion about BadXP. Wikinger (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (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.