Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death by PowerPoint

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 merge to Microsoft PowerPoint. (Since we're suggesting moveing some content over, the close needs to be merge, not redirect, for atttributions purposes) Courcelles 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death by PowerPoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would be happy with this being a redirect to Microsoft PowerPoint, with useful content merged there, but don't think that this collection of criticism should come under this heading. The term is one of several used to criticise the overuse of PowerPoint and, while I know that it's a fairly well known term, I don't see the need for a separate article and certainly not under this neologism. It is labelled as a stub right now and as such would be better served being part of the "Cultural impact" section of the main article or at the very least renamed as Criticism of Microsoft PowerPoint. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the nominator would be happy with a merge, why is it here at Articles for Deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because I would accept a redirect doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer it to be deleted. Others might feel one way or the other. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the confusion. When I read the nomination, I didn't interpret it as asserting any desire for deletion as an outcome. -- Whpq (talk)

• Redirect to Microsoft PowerPoint#Cultural impact. I don't see that the current sourcing is suitable for establishing a standalone article separate from the Powerpoint article. I'm not sure much of this material is worth merging. For example, the claim that "phrase was first coined by Angela R. Garber" is sourced back to an article written by Angela R. Garber in 2001. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect as per Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay the way it is currently and I believe the article can be improved, provided that it keeps being its own article. Wikifan21century (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (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.