Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGASAVE (2nd nomination)

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 NTLDR. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGASAVE

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

This article has been in existence for six years and has never had any references. A search for refs turned up forums and blogs. The article was previously nominated for AFD four an a half years ago, in 2006 and was kept but noted as needing improvement. The article is no better now than when it was created and the lack of refs prevents serious improvements. Does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements, non-encyclopedic topic. Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the wrong topic, with not wholly correct content, and a misleading name. The actual subject would be some combination of Microsoft Windows' Safe and VGA modes. The ground is sort of covered in NTLDR, which is a fairly good umbrella subject, although there's stuff missing from that (We lack a clear explanation of the subtle differences between the Safe Mode and VGA Mode options, for example.) and information on Safe and VGA Modes pertains to more than just NTLDR (It applies to Boot Configuration Data, too.). More on this in TechRepublic's PC User's Troubleshooting Guide (pp. 120 et seq.), Windows XP unleashed (pp. 135 et seq.), and numerous other books on the subject. We could probably do with an article on Microsoft Windows startup options or some such, covering the commonalities across 9x, NT4, NT5, and NT6 such as Safe Mode, VGA Mode, et al.. But this isn't a start to one, because, for starters, it's wrong (as checking some of the aforementioned books will reveal). Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - your technically detailed thoughts here are very helpful and much appreciated, but you haven't indicated if you are in favour of keeping or deleting this article or some other option such as merging it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever Uncle G says, since he's done the research. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like other people to do the research and so double-check me. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see List_of_Microsoft_Windows_components, and the Microsoft Windows category has a lot of things listed in it. If there is nowhere to merge this too, then keep it here until such a time that there is. It is a notable component of a very notable operating system, and this is encyclopedic content. Dream Focus 16:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the facts that (a) it isn't actually a component, and (b) this "encyclopaedic content" isn't verifiable and contradicts sources, because it's not, in fact, wholly correct. There are numerous sources on this that provide correct information that you can check to see how wrong this article is. Two have already been given. Here's another: Timothy L. Warner's MCDST exams pp. 155–156. The section is entitled "VGA Mode Versus Safe Mode". Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't delete unless this content is someplace else, it's encyclopedic and a notable part of MS Windows. RN 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really isn't. It's at best a Wikipedia editor's guess at how Windows works. Go and read the books for explanations of the actual workings of Windows, which explain the actual components and aspects of Windows (VGA Mode, Safe Mode, et al.) and what in fact Windows does. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that was worded wrong on my part, I was referring to the subject in general. (still can't make up my mind if just to delete the thing though, I guess since its partially if not mostly incorrect). RN 17:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's existed all this time (six years) and still doesn't have any reliable sources, then it's probably never going to get any. Warren -talk- 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Nothing really worthwhile to merge as the content is mostly incorrect, and its going to be nigh-impossible to get an RS for it, despite it being referenced in thousands of forum threads. (Not quite as detailed experience as Uncle G in this particular area, but knowledgable enough and appreciate the swift kick to my poorly worded opinion). RN 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is content on Microsoft's knowledge base on it, I only found one entry but I suppose it could be a reference, since some content in the article can be referenced from it. [1] petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for posting that link, but it is just a very brief, coincidental passing mention, it certainly isn't enough to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Ahunt in that it doesn't give it notability, and honestly I was surprised it was even on en:wiki.... I'd be a waste to see it deleted and not merged however I cant think of where to merge it except to an article on the features of Windows NT, perhaps with some more referenced, which can be found. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia has no place for content that is both unverifiable and wrong. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 18 July 2010 (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.