Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro$oft

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 REDIRECT to Alternative political spelling, although there are other suggestions. Since this is effectively an editorial decision, it can be pointed elsewhere if someone wants it to be. -Splash^talk 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro$oft

"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]

Aprove - it may be common internet slang, but so are a lot of other stupid sayings. Do they all deserve entries in Wikipedia? Nope. I also agree with Off's comment that this will 'never' be NPOV Smitz 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now vote redirect to Alternative political spelling, where I just found that "Micro$oft" is already listed and described. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be. The spelling's not really political. Gazpacho 07:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Wikitionary~~ In fact... it's already there! --Cymsdale 10:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikitionary This makes more sense --Cymsdale 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The term sees such common usage that I think it needs to stay. If we delete this, someone will come around and recreate it someday, almost assuredly with less NPOV. And if we delete this, should we also delete Microshaft, Internet Exploder, Internet Exploiter and other less common re-writings? Warrens 13:39, 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]

Move/Merge to Wiktionary; changing my vote per above comment. Warrens 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sommers Percy Snoodle 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect common misspelling of Microsoft. —Ruud 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wikitionary This makes much more sense. --Hetar 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wikitionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Srasku 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sommers. I think that makes more sense. -- Srasku 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~and Merge to Criticisms of Microsoft. There's already a merge proposal apparently;~~ what do people expect when they look up this term in Wikipedia? Just adding Micro$oft to Wiktionary won't help those. squell 02:07, 24 February 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]

Merge to Criticism, but redirect to Microsoft, extremely widespread. Gazpacho 07:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Microsoft (or an appropriate subpage). This is a pun on a proper name. It's not really Wiktionary material. Rossami (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Get rid of it all! ^KILO-_LIMA 18:47, 1 March 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.