Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Box Failure

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 keep. Majorly (Talk) 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Box Failure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a nn neologism, 829 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's commonly used in technical support to describe a hardware related failure on first use. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The term is certainly no neologism. It is a real term and was already in use in 1992, when I recall first encountering it. It's used both as a legal term in warranty agreements, and as a descriptive in articles and user instructions. This is a commonly used term and as such should be covered by Wikipedia. Further, this term is used both as a common language descriptive, and a legal term in at least the telecommunications, wireless, and PC industries. Something I also want to highlight is that companies such as HP and Lucent use the term in legalese, which is a strong statement of support, considering the cohorts of lawyers both of them command. And finally, the term describes a common user experience, which should have a name other than the marketing-coined hide-the-ball terms that I run across every now and then. Thus, I strongly recommend that this article not be deleted, and instead be embraced as an industry term in common use.

Aki Korhonen 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Maybe so. It still needs sources; hopefully, you'll be able to find some. :) Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merely a gloss on bathtub curve; could redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt's been in use for years, and is frequently reported in computer magazines. Unlike other terms, this is indeed known by many ordinary people. Needed some citations, though, so I've put some in. DGG 06:04, 12 December 2006 (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.