Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Diagnostics

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Diagnostics

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

Article's subject fails notability requirements. Google Books search uncovered passing mentions of it in books about modern version of Windows (when they want to mention System Information) and certain coverages in DOS books (which prove DOS is notable).

Also it does not have sources. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a notable topic (all notability criteria per WP:N are fulfilled) and valuable piece within our project's scope to discuss all commands provided by all common desktop operating systems like DOS, OS/2, Windows, Mac OS, Unix-alikes.

MSD was a regular command in MS-DOS 6.0 and higher (and was also bundled with various versions of Windows as well as with some application programs). As such, it was installed on hundreds of millions of PCs for years, and used by a significant number of users regularly or at least occasionally.

While Google may not show a particularly large number of hits today, this hardly means anything in regard to its notability, in particular not for topics pre-dating Google. While Google can be used to find references more easily, we cannot use Google the other way around, that is to establish non-notability.

I remember MSD being discussed in many books on DOS. I just verified this to be true by looking this up in some of the books in my personal library and I found about a dozen which do discuss MSD, with up to 20 pages dedicated solely on MSD in one of them. Also, MSD was regularly referred to in troubleshooting sections in printed magazine articles - I think I could come up with a very long list of mentionings (hundreds?) in those magazines I have archived alone (don't ask, I have better things to do with my time).

The article is not unreferenced, although it could certainly use more references. However, information being unreferenced is not reason to delete it unless it is wrong or harmful. Per WP:V, information does not need to be referenced or verified, it just needs to be verifiable (and, of course, it should be true). The information presented in the article is reasonably well-written, factually correct and verifiable (I could certainly provided reliable references for anything written in there except for MSD's bundling with other programs, but even that should be verifiable by someone in possession of those programs just by looking at the list of files shipping with them). While the article still lacks many details about MSD, it already contains too much information to reduce it to a list entry in another article.

Therefore I really can't see reasons why we should delete it and thereby destroy other editors' constructive contributions. It would be a step backwards for the project.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference in that article talks about the Windows msinfo32 tool, so it does not establish any notability for MSD. And yes, being unreferenced is grounds for deletion, as the {{unreferenced}} template itself states; if it were contrary to policy, this phrasing would have been deleted long ago. Right now your argument amounts to WP:VALINFO, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES: you claim that sources exist, and yet you did not show any of them. The WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you (or whoever else making claims of notability). Do you know this phrase: "brevity is wit"? Keφr 15:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it's a weak keep. The sources provide sufficient WP:GNG inclusions, even if they're in German. It's difficult to find sources for software this old, and I do recall running it occasionally, but it wasn't a key piece of software from MS and I doubt that it would be missed if it was deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2013 (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.