Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperText Template

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 Internet Explorer. Content should be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HyperText Template

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

Not notable, out of date by seven years, no indepent refs (Microsoft MSDN articles, Google search, and WP search are the refs), no inlinking articles. In one word "clutter". Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search reveals it is mentioned in a few obscure textbooks (obscure in 2011 but I imagine obscure in 1997) for Windows Millenium and Windows Me. I still say clutter. Si Trew (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be an obsolete bit of Microsoft cruft, but seems reasonably informative. Being out of date, or being "clutter", do not strike me as policy based reasons to delete anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to contain unverifiable and possibly inaccurate information. Some coverage can be found in books about Windows, but not much, and if there is not much verifiable information it should be merged. There is some information in Windows Explorer#Windows 98 and Windows Desktop Update, but as it was included in other versions of Windows, a redirect to List of Windows components may be better. Peter E. James (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Seems like a decently significant part of IE infrastructure, but if that is the case maybe it should be merged into some part of an IE-related article, in any case I found an article about it from a quick google search http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc302292.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.149.96 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Windows Desktop Update. Peter E. James (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Internet Explorer. This stuff must be kept together ~~so that we can send it all efficiently down the drain when the time is right~~ (don't sue me, it was a joke) --DeVerm (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2011 (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.