Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error 41

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 speedy delete. has already been speedied —Tom Morris (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error 41

Error 41 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a short article giving the reason for an error code in Windows. There are very many error codes in Windows and other operating systems and no reason to think that this particular one is so important that it needs its own encyclopaedia article. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the article's talk page, you are correct that it would not be appropriate for wikipedia to host individual articles for every error code. However, that is not to say that an error code may not be notable. As an analogy, it would be possible for me to propose that the Barak Obama article be deleted because 'there are zillions of mammals out there'. Yes, Barak Obama is a mammal, yes being a mammal is not notable, but he is notable for other reasons. The question then must be, is this particular error code notable compared to other error codes?

1. The error code features in popular culture, i.e. the recent xkcd webcomic. Garemoko (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. The error code is used in the device manager of a major operating system, Microsoft Windows.Garemoko (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just a regular error code

No arguments yet proposed

This topic does not meet the criteria that: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

It has been suggested that there is not significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It should be noted, however that Google returns "About 2,040,000,000 results"^[1] for Error 41. The majority of those on at least the first few pages of results are reliable and independent sources. This topic certainly does not lack significant coverage.

We may question the popularity of such coverage, that is to say that the internet tends to be used more by those who work in IT and therefore has a bias towards content on fixing

wikipedia's guideline's

however, and I would argue that given this topic's mentions in popular culture combined with its significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that it more than meets the criteria for notability.

Garemoko (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tidied the text above for readability, replacing section headings with italics - sections aren't normally used on AfD pages. Incidentally, there are a similar number of hits for Error 42, Error 43 and so on. Just saying. andy (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked "error 31" through "error 49" and "error 41" has the most hits. Some have considerably less hits, but you're right, many are comparable. Out of interest, as I used him as an example above, Barak Obama only gets just over 10% of the number of hits, as does "error 404". this suggests that hits on Google is not a good indicator of notability. Still, the topic meets wikipedia's guidelines - it has a significant number of reliable secondary sources. Garemoko (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of wp:notability provided, and ability to meet it looks unlikely. I also found the analogy given to be flawed. The analogy provides an ambiguous class (individual mammals vs. species of animals?) but more importantly for error 41 the class is given as the main reason for notability, whereas in the analogy the notability is clearly for reasons other than the class. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000. I've give 3 separate reasons for notability above, so I feel its inaccurate to say that no "indication" has been given. It would be much more helpful to explain why each reason given is not a good enough claim to notability. I appreciate that this may require a little more work on your part, but since you are pushing for an undo of the hard work I have put into researching and creating the article, I don't think that would be inappropriate.

In regards to the the analogy, I hope you'll agree that the accuracy of the biology is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Replace the word mammal with "American" and the point is the same. I think you've misunderstood the point I was making though. My point there (which you appear to agree with) is that being an error code is not sufficient to establish notability. Error 41 as a topic must be notable for other reasons in order to be considered notable enough for an article. This analogy was originally in response to a proposed deletion notice which essentially suggested that the page be deleted because the topic was an error code and there were lots of error codes. My argument was that this was the equivalent of suggesting the deletion of Barak Obama because he is a mammal and there are lots of mammals. This is simply not a good reason to delete a page.

It is therefore the responsibility of those arguing for the page to be kept to provide alternative reasons for notability, and the responsibility of those seeking to delete the article to refute those reasons. i created section headings as a framework for this debate. Thus far nobody has attempted to refute any of the reasons given or provided any evidence in their comments of having even read further than the article's title. Garemoko (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable topic, and the article already seems to be becoming a dumping ground for trivia. The xkcd connection is at best dubious as the error there is minus 41. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good point. I totally misread the cartoon. That does put a significant dent in the "in popular culture" section which is (was) probably this article's strongest argument for its existence. Garemoko (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2012 (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.