Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro$oft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srasku (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 3 March 2006 ([[Micro$oft]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Micro$oft" deserves scarcely a own article on Wikipedia. Possibly can the article be merged with Criticisms of Microsoft, but articles about satirical names can never be entirely NPOV. Delete. --Off! 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote, but two comments. (1) This is fairly well-documented Internet slang: see [1]. (2) Of course an article about satirical names can be entirely NPOV. It should be treated like any other article about someone's opinion or a controversy: describe it informatively, from a neutral point of view, without advancing one side or the other. It's all at WP:NPOV. If this article should be deleted, it should be for non-notability, not an unavoidable non-neutrality. –Sommers (Talk) 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for crusade, regardless if the concept is common or not. The article should be deleted (or merged). --Off! 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a merge would probably be best (or deletion for notability reasons), but I don't see how this page constitutes "crusade". The article is pretty much in line with the NPOV policy already: it looks like a good-faith neutral description of a point of view that doesn't try to advance it. –Sommers (Talk) 09:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wikitionary This makes more sense --Cymsdale 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point, it's a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think that some of those other articles should also be moved to wiktionary as well. --Cymsdale 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Yes, I see what you're getting at here. I've no involvement with Wiktionary so I'm not familiar with its focus. I'll change my vote though, this route sounds good. Warrens 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sommers. I think that makes more sense. -- Srasku 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but not becuase of the reason cited - users would be told that Wiktionary would have an article for this and they would look there. However it is not a real english word, and has meaning beyond its misspelling. gatoatigrado 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I changed my vote to Redirect per Sommers. squell 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]