Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word processor program

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 Word processor. Editors agree that there should be a single article for the topic, and the exact dab structure is out of scope of AfD. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word processor program

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is one of three articles at word processor, word processor (electronic device) and here at word processor program. The significance of the root term and the broad article is obvious. The need for an article on the physical devices is primarily historical, but also clear.

Which leaves us with this one, supposedly on word processor software. Which we find is currently an unsourced stub list of no obvious criteria (maybe historical more than importance). This article does nothing useful and anything its content does offer could be rolled up easily into the main article.

I've no objection to any split or redefinition to an article on the historical development of word processors, whether integrated or separate to the physical devices (Did WordStar overlap with the standalone typewriters? That might influence the best structure.) But this article, as it stands, as it has stood for a long time, and as it seems likely to stand in its current directionless stub, does nothing useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word processor per nom. Very large overlap/duplication of content. Though instead of deletion, I feel like the section under word processor could adopt some sources and organization ideas from the article for deletion Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to word processor per nom. No case for deletion made or even suggested. If it were to be deleted rather than merged or otherwise redirected we would need to look at renaming List of word processor programs and Comparison of word processor programs but this nomination doesn't seem to be a request for deletion at all. I don't think it is deliberate forum shopping but rather strange. See also alternatives to deletion and wp:merging. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of word processor programs should certainly be within the scope of this discussion. I'm fine with a list of significant WP programs, but that has to be more than merely 'notable', per WP:MILL and all the regular software article discussions. That article at present doesn't stand, as it has neither useful inclusion criteria, nor adequate sourcing for what it has. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you don't actually link to WP:MILL. It is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, but even so I think you are misquoting it. You say I'm fine with a list of significant WP programs, but that has to be more than merely 'notable', per WP:MILL and all the regular software article discussions. No, the bar for inclusion of something in a list or other article is significantly lower than for a having a dedicated article on the topic, not higher as you seem to suggest. Were that not so, we would have no redirects to article sections. See Template:R to section/doc and note also Category:Redirects to sections which says in part The latter type redirects are good search terms and may have the possibility of becoming full articles someday (my emphasis). Note that may. It's not necessarily the case. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree substantially with that. WP doesn't need (well, I don't need, which is all I can truly say, but it's certainly my viewpoint) another content-free list of arbitrary names that pass the basic barrel-bottom level for possible inclusion in a list article, but that convey absolutely no encyclopedic content of any value by being there. Which is what we have here. Twice. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be simply an appeal to I don't like it (an essay I admit). And I sometimes find this too.

But if we don't like Wikipedia's policies etc, there are three options. One is to change them (and that's a policy). Another is to set up your own wiki, as I have done twice now, once seriously with The Online Encyclopedia of Tunings (much neglected recently I admit) and more recently and far less seriously with Unimpedia which could perhaps better be called Andrewpedia (and is equally neglected).

And the third is to invoke wp:IAR which is also a policy in its own right.

All three can can be constructive, but I doubt that there are grounds for IAR here. I could be wrong. But if I'm right then I think you need to look at the first two options, as your not personally finding the article content of interest is not a valid reason for deleting it under our current policy. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit awkward. I think the best outcome would actually be rename to word processing program. The merge idea is OK, but it's odd to have word processor and word processor (electronic device), and the article at word processor currently spends a lot of text on the devices part. I think word processor should be a DAMB page and link to both pages as options. (Edit: if it wasn't clear, I would instead favor merging content from word processor over to this one, instead of merging in this direction.) Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're broadly agreeing here that there should be one article on word processors (the software we run on general purpose computers to do it) and a separate article on the historically significant, but now largely obsolete, devices that were dedicated single task hardare for this, based around either screens or printers.

The question then would be how to structure it. You suggest a disambig at the primary topic name and two subsidiary articles, of broadly equal prominence. I'd do it the other way, as I think it's clearer: the main article at the primary topic, then a secondary article on the physical devices, with a disambiguated name. No-one likes disambig pages, they get in the way of navigation. Also as there's a very clear primary topic here by importance (even if they weren't the earlier uses of the term), then that gets the favoured name. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree that we are in broad agreement and with your summary text after "broadly agreeing here that"!

I'm somewhat agnostic on the structure, as long as the proper cleanup is done to move the content around to the appropriate pages. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's weird at all per WP:Summary style. The devices article has a lot of extra detail that justifies a separate article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge word processor (electronic device) and word processor program into word processor Word processor programs evolved out of word processor electronic devices. Logoshimpo (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2025 (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.