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 a redirect is more appropriate, and the POV material will be gone once the redirect is effected. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too inherently POV and nothing that can't be handled under Common criticisms of Microsoft, as it seems to admit. Daniel Case 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. OCNative 06:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect in that case... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, better handled at the criticism article. I redirected "Microsoft scams" there but an anon keeps reverting it. Gazpacho 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too POV -- Astrokey44|talk 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too POV the needle span to NPOV Sceptre ^(Talk) 12:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Microsoft criticisms article and tone down the POV rhetoric. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to microsoft criticism, as per Daniel Case and Cactus.--Austrian 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Cactus.man. utcursch | talk 06:45, 9 January 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.