Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Screen of Death

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 Redirect to Screen of death#Other_screens_of_death. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Screen of Death

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

This article discusses two different topics: a TiVo maintenance screen and a Xbox system failure screen. Those two devices have no relation to each other. This article is like a WP:COATRACK, except worse, because there is no coherent topic to begin with.

Also, neither topic is sourced at all. I doubt either would pass WP:GNG: there is simply nothing to write about other than "if this device fails to function properly, an error screen appears, contact customer support to fix that" — in-depth coverage in independent sources of either simply cannot exist. — Keφr 08:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TiVo failure mode is discussed on 4 separate pages of How to Do Everything with Your TiVo (McGraw-Hill Publishers) and on page 24 of "TiVo Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools" (O'Reilly Media). Both of these sources actually call it the "Green Screen of Death". Accordingly Green Screen of Death is at least plausible redirect to TiVo and should not be deleted. So I suggest a redirect with or without merge. James500 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Screen of death might be a better target for merger (of whatever content the sources support) and redirection. James500 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced content to merge right now, and if the target article does not mention the term, redirecting makes no sense. And both sources seem to be barely mentioning that the thing exists anyway. — Keφr 19:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes no sense. Either TiVo or Screen of death ought to discuss this topic and, since adequate sources are available, you are in a position to add a discussion of this topic to that article and you ought to do so. By your logic, every time an article is vandalized by being blanked, all redirects to that article must be deleted. And all I have to do to defeat your argument is to add a discussion of the "green screen of death" to that article. James500 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC) To put it another way, an expression can be legitimately redirected to a target page on the assumption that the target page will eventually mention that expression. James500 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a passage about the green screen of death to Screen of death with this edit, so you now have no possible grounds for claiming that Green Screen of Death is not a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you ought to do so" — no, the onus is on the "keeper" to show that the material is useful and relevant. I think it is not. Pretty much the only thing that can be extracted from these sources is "It exists". So? And [[Screen of death]] is just as bad of a quasi-coatrack article as this one is. I think it ought to be nominated too. — Keφr 17:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is only an essay. Can you offer any positive reason to not include it that doesn't sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the article is already a dictionary entry or usage guide or quasi disambiguation page, in the sense of having multiple meanings on the same page, how will one more meaning make matters worse? And can you give any positive reason for not including the passage that I wrote in TiVo (or one of its daughter articles) where its inclusion can't possibly be any form of synthesis. James500 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Your argument that Screen of death is a coatrack is not going to work, because that article is meant to be a disambiguation page. (This was decided at the last AfD in 2009). And disambiguation pages don't have to have a coherent topic. (Though it might require reworking). James500 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is only an essay, but so is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (And the very same one, to boot!) My reason for exclusion is this: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have nothing against a sentence in [[TiVo]], if it is nontrivial (no "when there is an error, a message appears"), sourced and put in proper context. Screen of death is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages look like this: a mere list of links, sometimes split into sections. And no references. — Keφr 08:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the Xbox, see this article in The Register. James500 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, congratulations. Now you have something to add to the article about Xbox One. Which did not exist back in 2006 when this article had identical content. — Keφr 08:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Rant: Why does it always take a deletionist to nominate an article for someone to start looking for sources at all? Contrary to a popular mantra, not only is AFD cleanup, it is the best cleanup Wikipedia has.[reply]
  - Reply to rant: It might have something to do with the amount of time that has to be spent discussing nominations, and especially borderline nominations, instead of editing articles directly.
Green screen of death has been a redirect to the article that is now Screen of death since 2009. James500 (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Screen of death. That is where the other redirect points. James500 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Screen of Death. It seems ridiculous to have one of these for every colour of the rainbow. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to screen of death If something goes out, it has a screen with a color for it; these aren't any different. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to screen of death#Other screens of death. A legitimate search term, but there is no need for a separate article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (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.