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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studies related to Microsoft

[edit]

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

This page has a collection of 5 generally unrelated studies:

The IDC study is already in the Windows 2000 article.
I don't think the Cybersource study is notable enough to be anywhere, but could be merged depending on consensus.
Get the Facts should be merged into Windows Server 2003.
The get the facts new campaing study should be deleted. It isn't really even a study, just a webpage put up by Microsoft to advertise IE8. Despite claims of critisism in the article, only one source is listed, and it is a personal blog.
The Windows XP vs Windows ME study again does not seem notable to me (a study of just 36 people?), but if consensus determines it could be merged into Windows XP.

So, to sum up all this longwinded explanation, this article should be merged/deleted as appropriate, then the original article should be deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... what an interesting article. I would have never thought a list of studies would be encyclopedic in its own right. I think instead, the various studies should be analyzed individually, for example if they end up criticizing Microsoft, then they should go to Criticism of Microsoft etc. i.e. I propose a merge to various other articles.--Coin945 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 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, v/r - T P 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a loosely related conglomeration of stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random assortment of content. Neutrality^talk 21:09, 22 December 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.