Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excel Corruption

Excel Corruption

Excel Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page reads as unfounded attack on a product, lacking citation, context, or sources. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I am an engineer at Microsoft, and this is really the major cause of corruption. I love Microsoft Excel, just that well, sometimes it get corrupted by bad reference, especially in multiple version use (excel 2000 to 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if it's true -- It needs to be verifiable and notable. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

• Notable it is, excel has more than 300 millions users worldwide. Verifiable, well you would need a collection of excel corrupted document from tech support in some company, and make stats about what percentage are corrupted by which method —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Read the information here on what is and isn't considered notable on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: This unreferenced article has hardly any content at all, it's like a poorly written section of the excel article was just copied into an unnecessary article. – Jerry^teps 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for all the reasons already stated by others. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:53, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? I mean Excel is a very popular software and if 0.1% of people experience corruption issues, that article could help hundreds of thousands of people. --Nicholasethier (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't here to help people :) Or rather, the fact that an article would help people isn't reason enough to keep it around. Wikipedia has very specific instructions for which articles are to be kept. Read the information at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:46, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
      • Please be more specific why YOU don't believe my original reason why it is notable or verifiable are not valid one? Just giving me links to very long general text is not helping— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs)
        • It would help if you read them. In short, you need independent reliable third-party sources -- in this case something other than the Microsoft website -- that talk about the issue. Otherwise the topic isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you need more info on the rules here, feel free to read my useless links. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
          • Do you know any Independant reliable third-party sources that discuss of Excel corruption Except Microsoft website? If you do, let me know so that I can search in them rather than anywhere else— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs)
            • No I don't know of any offhand, though you have about 5 days to improve the article before a decision is made. I would recommend reading through the notability guidelines though, so that you know the best ways to edit the article, and whether or not the topic could ever even be considered notable, which there's no guarantee of.Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing that couldn't be in the Excel article, if it could be verified. As it stands, delete per ThuranX and others as not verifiable and not notable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Listen, if Microsoft website Knowledgebase and 300 millions user is not notable enough, well nothing will satisfied you guys and knowledge will not be dispersed. Could we settle down with a mention that some quote in the article needs independent sources? I would hate that such useful knowledge be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • We've got around 2 million other articles on Wikipedia, so I think it's a slight exaggeration to say that nothing will satisfy us. What would be a start would be if you actually read the rules first. If you want to create articles, that's the first step. It's unavoidable. Once you read those, you'll have a better understanding of what the article needs and what you can do to improve it -- and, whether or not it can be improved enough to keep, since as someone else suggested, this info could go in the Excel article, and probably doesn't need its own. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable as well as unverifiable original research. MuZemike (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please userfy to my page not copyvio, so good enough. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)