Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PC Load Letter (second nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. With only 4 editors calling for deletion, it was never in danger of being deleted. There was a majority in favour of keeping as opposed to merging. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See first AfD.
• Delete. I don't believe that a single error message on a certain brand of printers fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements. It was briefly used as a joke in a single movie, but the joke is adequately described in that movie's article. — Mike • 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LaserJet or Office Space--TBCTaLk?!? 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, interestingly, I went to this page just the other day, and found it suprisingly informative! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnewf (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 June 2006.
• Merge per TBC. --Coredesat 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with re-write to remove uncited "commentary". While notable in its connection to Office Space, the phrase has a separate and verifiable basis, which is beyond the scope of the film article-- similar to TPS report. It might be noted that the phrase "PC Load Letter" generates over 74,000 entries on Google (as opposed to a few hundred for other HP printer error codes). This article has been cited for interest on Digg.com; the phrase has been used as the name of a Seattle band; on [www.cafepress.com/shopmmp/532199 t-shirts]; and as a common rant by tech bloggers: [1], [2], [3]. --Leflyman^Talk 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as a point of reference, remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which notes, "any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible."—Leflyman^Talk 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Agent 86 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Leflyman. I don't believe it will be as useful of an article as a part of a larger one. PCLL has equal (ir)relevance to both Office Space and HP blahblahJet printers, it stands out as its own concept. hateless 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a printer error message, FFS. -- GWO
• Keep. As well as being well-embedded in Internet popular culture, I think the "Office Space" references are sufficient to bring it within WP:NEO. Tevildo 11:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Leflyman. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Office Space. Its presence on digg and some blogs does not indicate notability... because all of that is related to Office Space. It really is just a printer error message, albeit one with slightly higher profile than most. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a printer error message, true, but not just any.... Well written and has sources. I'd say merge to the appropriate printer article, but it seems to cover multiple printers. Merging it to the Office Space article isn't right either. (It doesn't make sense to propose a merge as TBC does, if you can't say exactly where, cleanly... that's an argument that, if notable enough, the article needs to stand alone) It should stand on its own. Keep or, if you must, merge but then make sure that ALL the other articles that reference it are properly corrected to point to the right section of whereever it ends up. Not a delete comment in any way shape or form. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how being well written makes it any more of a valid subject. Viridae 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't. However we sometimes use as an argument for delete "This topic needs an article, but this one here under consideration isn't it, it's not well written and reflects badly on WP and there is no evidence anyone has worked on it lately to make it better...", thinking that it is better not to have any article than a very poor one. The comment was addressing that argument, should it be raised (which it hasn't been). Sorry for lack of clarity. The key point is that this term is notable enough to merit an article, or some exposition, and trying to force fit it somewhere won't work well, too many different places reference it. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd argue the opposite here. This is a well written, well sourced but completely pointless, unencyclopedic article. And pointless & unencyclopedic trumps everything. -- GWO
        • Perhaps to some individuals, particular those who may not be "tech-minded", the phrase might appear pointless; but then, aren't any number of obscure topics which are uninteresting/unknown to the masses also "pointless"? In this case, the phrase is a meme of a cultural significance within a certain "in the know" group -- so much so, that it's referenced in a song written for System Administrator Appreciation Day: "He's the only one in the office who knows what PC Load Letter means." (by Canadian comedy troupe, Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie)--Leflyman^Talk 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • the phrase is a meme of a cultural significance within a certain "in the know" group -- You can't have cultural significance and be restricted to a tiny clique. That makes no sense. -- GWO
          • Of course it does. Sub-cultures are a common enough phenomenon, particularly on the Internet. See also: In-joke, Internet meme and The Internet and Memetics (1999 paper), which notes, "As Internet culture develops and moves farther from real-world culture, it becomes harder, not necessarily to gain access, but to join in effectively once access is gained... those who do may not share the technical and cultural interests of those with access."--Leflyman^Talk 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see that being badly written would push an article over the edge to be deleted, but I don't think it applies in the reverse situation. Yes the article is well written, but that doesnt overide that fact that its about an error code on a printer. Most of the notability seems to be attributed to its uses for a joke in a movie - in which case, it should have a short mention in the movie's page. However when voting merge, I am not reffering to the entire article. A short description of what it is and what it means followed by its significance as a cultural reference spawned by that movie. If neccesary, redirect the page when it has been deleted to the movie's page. In fact, I am adding Redirect to my vote. Viridae 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge and Redirect to Office Space. See the comment above for change of vote reason. Wiki is not a tech manual or here to diagnose problems with electronic equipment. If there isn't a mention of it in the relevant movie's page, then add a short reference. Viridae 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is not the diagnosis itself, but rather that HP missed the mark in developing this term for not thinking globally enough. That miss is (within limited scope) culturally significant given how widespread it is, and it has entered popular culture (again, within limited scope). Doesn't really belong on the movie page in my view, rather with the relevant printer (but which one? it applies to many) Hence not mergable. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you clarify what you mean by "but rather that HP missed the mark in developing this term for not thinking globally enough."? Viridae 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lar below. I would support a merge; however, as noted below, there are multiple merge targets possible, and there is enough content here to support its own article. Note: I had to put this at the top because some unknown glitch cut off the edit window about halfway through the section. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from above; and reverted accidentally deleted comments--Leflyman^Talk 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - PC Load Letter? What the $%#@ does that mean? Notable just from the Office Space cultural reference ... BigDT 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge where appropriate. If it is notable for being in Office Space then that is where the mention belongs. If there is a band with that name—and there are numerous bands named after all sorts of common or clever phrases—then if the band is notable it will have its own article. Note that the main reason it gets more hits (which without office space references is about 30,000, not 70,000) is that it is a much more common error than for example "PC Load Legal" or "PC Load A4", because Letter-sized paper is far more common. "Paper jam", which gets more than 300,000 hits, does not have an article. —Centrx→talk 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does warrant an article. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
• Weak keep, primarily because, as Lar said, there isn't a very good merge target available. BryanG^(talk) 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above Scented Guano 04:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. MikeWazowski 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Laserjet or similar, with a see also of some kind to Office Space from there. Centrx makes a good point about "paper jam", but even though this is wringing notability out of being in a movie, it's still a printer term and that's where it should be redirected. Deizio talk 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is actually quite informative, and has a lot of (good) information that wouldn't really be appropriate to an Office Space section. Many of the other Office Space-related articles (TPS Report, etc) have their own article, and this definitely falls into the same category. 69.255.20.212 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry. The above is me, I forgot to log in... again. Dark Shikari 03:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was quite informative and was around long before the movie Office Space Beholdthenightmare 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please add new votes to the bottom of the page. Viridae^Talk 01:43, 28 June 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.